ArticleMedicine2025
Clinical outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for esophageal subepithelial tumors.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection With Submucosal Injection for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Neoplasms (With Video).DEN open · 2027Article
- Closure strategies post-EMR for esophageal SMTs.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophageal submucosal tumors are increasingly identified through routine upper endoscopy, often performed as part of health screenings. Although many of these lesions are benign, some have malignant potential, necessitating accurate diagnosis and appropriate resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has gained attention as a novel technique that enables mucosal resection without submucosal injection, offering advantages in terms of safety and efficacy. However, data regarding its use for esophageal submucosal tumors are limited. This retrospective single-center study included 31 patients who underwent UEMRs for esophageal submucosal tumors between 2020 and 2024. The inclusion criteria were lesions <15 mm in diameter, confined to the submucosal layer, as confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound. Clinical variables, including age, sex, lesion characteristics, procedural details, and histopathological findings, were reviewed. Outcomes included en bloc and pathological complete (R0) resection rates, complications, and recurrence during follow-up. Among the 31 patients (mean age: 57.0 ± 12.5 years; 61% male), the most common lesion location was the lower esophagus (45.2%). Most lesions measured 5 to 10 mm (51.6%). Histopathologic diagnoses included leiomyomas (38.7%), granular cell tumors (32.3%), inflammatory fibroid polyps, and other benign entities. All lesions were resected en bloc using UEMR, with a 100% R0 resection rate. No major complications, including bleeding or perforation, occurred. During a follow-up period of up to 37 months, no recurrence was observed, including in cases of granular cell tumors or adenoid cystic carcinomas. UEMR is a safe and effective technique for managing esophageal submucosal tumors, demonstrating high en bloc and R0 resection rates with no major complications. These findings support UEMR as a favorable option for the resection of small esophageal submucosal tumors, providing a rationale for further prospective studies comparing UEMR with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, band ligation-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.