ArticleDEN open2026
Comparative Analysis of Conventional Ideal Button Versus New Ideal Button ZERO for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Catheter Replacement.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Regular exchange of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) catheters is crucial for preventing infection and maintaining function; however, procedure-related complications and patient discomfort remain major concerns. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the conventional Ideal Button with those of the newly developed Ideal Button ZERO (Olympus Corporation). Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we included 82 PEG catheter exchange procedures, performed in 42 patients. Because some patients underwent repeated exchanges, analyses were conducted on a per-procedure basis. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group N (conventional to conventional Ideal Button exchange, Results: Procedure-related complications occurred only in Group Z (0/33 vs. 6/49; 0% vs. 12.2%) ( Conclusions: The new Ideal Button ZERO showed a reduced procedure time; however, it revealed a trend toward higher procedure-related complications without clear superiority over conventional devices. Improved proficiency with the new device may reduce complication rates, warranting further investigation as its adoption increases. Trial Registration: 2025-047.
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.