Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41648810›Full record

ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2025

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of a novel rigidizing overtube in completing difficult colonoscopies and for challenging colorectal polyp resection.

Eleazar E Montalvan-Sanchez, Dalton A Norwood, Diego Izquierdo-Veraza, Renato Beas, Mirian Ramirez-Rojas, Sergio A Sánchez-Luna, Shajan Peter, Douglas R Morgan, Douglas K Rex

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Eleazar E Montalvan-SanchezMedicine Department, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Dalton A NorwoodDivision of Preventive Medicine, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Diego Izquierdo-VerazaMedicine Department, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Renato BeasMedicine Department, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Mirian Ramirez-RojasRuth Lilly Medical Library, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Sergio A Sánchez-LunaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Shajan PeterDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Douglas R MorganDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Heersink School of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama.
Douglas K RexDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Completing colonoscopy in redundant colons and resecting complex precancerous lesions are 2 challenging areas in the technical performance of colonoscopy. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to assess the clinical success of a rigidizing overtube (ROT) to facilitate completion of difficult colonoscopy insertions and challenging polyp resections. Methods: We used multiple electronic databases from August 2019 through June 2024 to identify studies evaluating the use of the novel ROT for colonoscopies. Results: Five studies were included with a total of 163 patients. Three studies evaluated the ROT system in challenging colonoscopies, with a combined cecal intubation rate of 100%. There were no adverse events. Four studies evaluated ROT for challenging colorectal polyp resection. The overall clinical success was 94.7%. Procedure facilitation was reported in 3 studies, with an average of 92.5% facilitation. One study compared endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with and without ROT and reported similar en-bloc resection and curative rates with the use of ROT (92% and 88%, respectively) compared with conventional ESD (96% and 92%, respectively). In other studies that evaluated ROT in the removal of challenging polyps (60 patients), technical success was achieved in all cases. Conclusions: ROT is safe, shows potential in enhancing the clinical success of completing difficult colonoscopies, and may be useful for facilitating ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection of some colonic lesions. The mechanism of any benefit is likely in reducing looping in the case of previous incomplete colonoscopies and providing stability in the case of the complex resections. Further controlled studies are warranted and needed to confirm benefit.

Identifiers

PMID41648810
PMCPMC12850809

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.