ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Feasibility of repeat non-exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection of recurrent or residual colonic adenoma after previous full-thickness resection.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) can be used to treat recurrent or residual colorectal adenomas. No data are available on treatment of recurrences after EFTR, especially on feasibility and safety of repeat EFTR (re-EFTR). Patients and methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent device-assisted non-exposed re-EFTR in the colorectum. Technical success, adverse events (AEs), and recurrences were analyzed and compared to patients with primary EFTR. Results: Twenty-seven patients who underwent re-EFTR were included. Median age was 75 years (range: 54-85 years) and nine patients were female (33.3%). The indication for re-EFTR was recurrent adenoma in 24 patients (88.9%) and most lesions were in the right-sided colon (n = 22; 81.5%). Technical success was achieved in 22 patients (81.5%). Reasons for failure were failure to reach the lesion in one case and inability to fully mobilize the lesion into the cap in four cases. Follow-up after 2 to 6 months revealed recurrent lesion in four of 24 cases (16.7%) and four more occurred during further follow-up. Surgery was necessary in two cases. AEs occurred in two cases (7.4%). Comparison with primary EFTR showed a trend toward lower technical success (81.5% vs. 100.0%, Conclusions: Repeat EFTR for recurrence after a previous EFTR is feasible in most patients and only a few patients require surgical resection. The rate of recurrence might be higher than that after primary EFTR, yet there are no differences in AEs.
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.