ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Prophylactic mucosal defect closure reduces delayed adverse events after endoscopic resection of large-to-giant laterally spreading superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWe aimed to assess the efficacy of prophylactic mucosal defect closure in reducing delayed adverse events (AEs) after endoscopic resection (ER) of large-to-giant laterally spreading superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of 219 patients with 230 large-to-giant laterally spreading SNADETs who underwent ER at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. The preoperative baseline information, procedure-related AEs and follow-up outcomes were compared between lesions with complete closure and those with incomplete closure or no closure.
resultsThe mean maximal diameter was 22.8 ± 13.8 mm (mean ± SD), with 67 lesions (29.1%) ≥ 30 mm. A total of 42 lesions (18.3%) had an occupied circumference ≥ 50%. There were 32 lesions (13.9%) with incomplete closure or non-closure of the mucosal defect. A total of 18 lesions (7.8%) experienced delayed AEs, including delayed perforation in 6 cases (2.6%) and delayed bleeding in 12 cases (5.2%). Lesions with incomplete closure or non-closure had a higher incidence of delayed AEs than lesions with complete closure (34.4% vs 3.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analyses revealed that incomplete or no mucosal defect closure (OR = 5.154; 95% CI = 1.443-18.405; P = 0.012) and lesions located on the anal side of the major papilla (OR = 11.457; 95% CI = 1.404-93.499; P = 0.023) were independent risk factors for delayed AEs. Lesions with an occupied circumference ≥ 50% (OR = 3.171; 95% CI = 1.024-9.818; P = 0.045) and irregular shape (OR = 5.557; 95% CI = 1.226-25.184; P = 0.026) were independent risk factors for incomplete closure or non-closure.
conclusionsProphylactic mucosal defect closure is an effective technique for reducing delayed AEs after ER of large-to-giant laterally spreading SNADETs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41261246What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.