ArticleSurgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques2026
Analysis of Risk Factors for Postoperative Delayed Perforation Following Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.
Article in Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelayed perforation is a serious complication after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Understanding its incidence, associated risk factors, and clinical outcomes can guide preventative measures. This study aimed to determine the incidence of delayed perforation, identify independent risk factors, and describe the clinical course and management outcomes.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 57 patients who developed delayed perforation ("cases"). Each case was matched 1:1 by key variables (eg, age, tumor location) with 57 controls who did not experience delayed perforation. Baseline characteristics and the timing of delayed perforation were collected. We compared clinical and procedural factors in univariate analysis and conducted multivariate conditional logistic regression. Clinical course and management outcomes for delayed perforation, and subgroup analyses were assessed robustness.
resultsA total of 57 patients developed delayed perforation at a median of 2 days postprocedure (IQR 1 to 7). In univariate analysis, larger tumor size ( P =0.02) and operator inexperience (<80 ESDs, P =0.03) were associated with an increased risk. In multivariate analysis, tumor size (adjusted OR 1.45 per cm, 95% CI: 1.04-2.02, P =0.03) and operator inexperience (adjusted OR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.21-6.81, P =0.02) remained significant risk factors. Most patients with delayed perforation presented with abdominal pain (61.4%), and diagnosis was primarily made via CT (66.7%). Management strategies included endoscopic closure (31.6%), surgical repair (35.1%), and conservative treatment (33.3%), with a mean hospital stay of 7.5±2.3 days. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.
conclusionsLarger tumor size and limited operator experience were independent risk factors. Endoscopic or surgical interventions resulted in satisfactory outcomes. These results highlight the need for standardized preventive measures and operator training to mitigate this complication.
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.