Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41469508›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025

Magnetic hydrogel-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of large intestine in vitro animal experimental study.

C Sun, X Zhang, S Huang, H Sun, L Chang, P Xu, C Li, Y Zhang, X Cui, Z Xiao and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

C SunDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
X ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China. zxycxw@sina.com.
S HuangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
H SunDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
L ChangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
P XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
C LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Y ZhangSchool of Instrumentation and Optoelectronic Engineering, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, 100000, China.
X CuiComputer Centre, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Z XiaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
R ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
M YuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Y ChenDepartment of Oncology, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Research Institute, Beijing, 101149, China.

Funding

Xueyan Zhang Heilongjiang Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Project (Grant Number: SJGY20210560)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection (MAG-ESD) has significant advantages in the treatment of difficult lesions (Mortagy et al. in World J Gastroenterol 23:2883-2890, 2017). However, the main problem of MAG-ESD is that the placement of the magnetic anchor in vivo often requires the withdrawal and reinsertion of the endoscope, which prolongs the operation time (Zhang et al. in Tech Coloproctol 27:679-683, 2023). We introduced a novel technique, magnetic hydrogel-assisted ESD, and compared it with conventional ESD to explore its advantages and disadvantages.

methodsWe uniformly configured 0.5% sodium alginate (Sanchez-Ballester et al. in Carbohydr Polym 270:118399, 2021) (SA) solution, 1% CaCl

resultsThe median submucosal dissection time for magnetic hydrogel-assisted ESD (MHA-ESD) and conventional ESD was 15.13 min (IQR 11.21-19.05) and 17.89 min (IQR 13.74-22.04), respectively. The submucosal dissection time for MHA-ESD was significantly shorter compared to conventional ESD (P = 0.0368). Similarly, the submucosal dissection speed for MHA-ESD and conventional ESD was 74.81 mm

conclusionsCompared with conventional ESD, MHA-ESD significantly accelerates the speed of submucosal dissection, effectively improves surgical efficiency, and enhances procedural convenience, thereby reducing the overall difficulty of ESD.

Indexed as

ColonEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionHydrogelsIntestinal MucosaMagneticsAlginatesAnimalsFeasibility StudiesModels, AnimalOperative TimeSwineAlginatesHydrogelsColonic tumorsEndoscopic submucosal dissectionMagnetic anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissectionMagnetic hydrogelMagnetic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41469508
PMCPMC12775096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.