SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2026
Was Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy Too Risky? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including German Registry Data.
Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Was Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy Too Risky? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including German Registry Data.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsMotorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) was introduced as a major advancement in small-bowel enteroscopy, enabling higher complete enteroscopy rates with shorter procedure times. However, after a fatal adverse event (AE) involving severe esophageal injury, the device was withdrawn from the market in July 2023. This raised questions about whether earlier safety signals were missed.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MSE with balloon-based enteroscopy (double-balloon [DBE] and single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE], analyzed together). Outcomes included overall AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and data collection quality. Results from the German PowerSpiral Registry were included, comprising 647 MSE procedures in 523 patients (January 2020-July 2023) before registry closure following device withdrawal.
resultsThirteen MSE studies (including the registry) and 55 DBE/SBE studies were analyzed, totaling 12,559 enteroscopies (2024 MSE; 10,535 DBE/SBE). MSE showed significantly higher rates of AEs (10.8% vs. 1.6%) and SAEs (1.5% vs. 0.4%). Procedure-related SAEs were also more frequent with MSE (1.1% vs. 0.3%). Esophageal injury (0.10% vs. 0.009%) and intestinal perforation (0.5% vs. 0.1%) occurred more often with MSE, whereas acute pancreatitis (0.05% vs. 0.27%) and esophageal perforation (0% vs. 0.02%) were more common with DBE/SBE. AE reporting for MSE was detailed, but structured follow-up and reliable case tracking were inconsistent.
conclusionsMSE was associated with higher AE and SAE rates than balloon enteroscopy. These findings highlight the need for cautious adoption, rigorous safety monitoring, and more robust AE reporting when introducing innovative endoscopic technologies. STUDY REGISTRATION: The prospective and retrospective cohort studies were registered in the German Registry of Clinical Studies (DRKS), namely DRKS00026990 and DRKS00028571.
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.