ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2022
Novel through-the-scope steerable grasper for dynamic traction reduces dissection time and technical demand in endoscopic submucosal dissection in novice endoscopists compared with clip-and-line traction method: an ex vivo randomized study.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Efficacy and safety of a multi-degree-of-freedom articulating forceps for endoscopic submucosal dissection and closure of large mucosal defects in a porcine model.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Lack of effective tissue traction devices to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) leads to prolonged dissection time. We aimed to study the efficacy of a novel through-the-scope steerable grasper arm (SGA) for dynamic traction compared with the clip-and-line (CL) traction method in an ex vivo setting. Methods: This was a prospective, single-center, randomized ex vivo study. In a porcine stomach model, two 25-mm circular lesions were marked. Novice endoscopists with no prior ESD experience performed ESD with both traction methods (SGA and CL). Each participant was randomized to either SGA first (study group) or CL first (control group). The primary outcome was total dissection time in minutes. Adverse events of muscle injury, perforation, mucosal injury, or fragmentation were noted. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) task load index (TLX) was used to grade technical workload. Results: Ten subjects participated in the study, and 5 were randomized to the SGA method first. The mean dissection time was significantly shorter with SGA compared with CL (5.07 ± 2.19 minutes vs 20.07 ± 8.45 minutes, Conclusions: With novice endoscopists performing ESD, SGA traction leads to faster dissection time compared with the CL method with a reduced technical workload in an ex vivo setting. The SGA is a promising tool to improve efficiency and the learning curve of ESD.
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.