ArticleScientific reports2025
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy with lumen-apposing metal stent: an animal study comparison of wireless and over-the-wire techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) proved efficacy and safety for the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Nevertheless, lack of standardization and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) misdeployment are limiting its spread. The aim was to compare the wireless endoscopic simplified technique (WEST) and the direct technique over a guided-wire (DTOG) and to evaluate patency and maximal anastomotic tensile strength (MATS) after LAMS-in-LAMS salvage therapy. A prospective animal study was performed comparing DTOG and WEST techniques. After performing an EUS-GE, LAMS-in-LAMS was performed to treat involuntary or voluntary LAMS misdeployment. The animals were followed during 12 weeks. Primary endpoints included technical success, safety and easiness of the EUS-GE, while secondary endpoints included patency and MATS of the anastomosis. 11 EUS-GE were performed in 10 living pigs. The WEST had a high technical success (100% vs. 60%; p = 0.180), less voluntary misdeployment (33.3% vs. 100%, p = 0.060), a better easiness score (7/10 vs. 1/10; p < 0.01) and better technical outcomes (number of attempts and procedure duration) compared to DTOG. Concerning LAMS-in-LAMS, technical success was 81.8%. At week 10 LAMS were removed and at week 12, the anastomosis diameter was reduced by an average of 1.85 mm [range 0-9.5 mm]. The mean MATS was 27.46 ± 5.07 N. WEST resulted in higher technical success as compared to DTOG to create EUS-GE. In case of LAMS misdeployment, the LAMS-in-LAMS proofed to be a reliable rescue therapy with a good anastomotic patency and tensile strength.
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.