ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Evaluation of the envision endoscopy SimpleStitch suturing system for closure of gastrointestinal defects in a porcine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlexible endoscopic suturing tools are complex and may have a long learning curve. This porcine study evaluated the safety and performance of a simplified suturing system compared with a commercially available device for the repair of gastrointestinal mucosal defects.
methodsThis IACUC-approved study included four healthy swine. A total of ten defects (six in the stomach and four in the rectosigmoid colon) were created in each animal. Defects were randomly assigned to closure with either the novel or the commercially available system using a therapeutic gastroscope. Technical success was defined as mucosal closure of the defect with the inability to visualize any significant portion of the resection bed. Additional performance metrics included procedure time and device ease of use (assessed using the NASA Task Load Index [TLI]) and adverse events.
resultsNo adverse events were reported post-procedurally for any of the test animals. The proportion of target resection sites achieving technical success was 100% in both treatment groups. The mean SimpleStitch NASA-TLI score was lower compared to the OverStitch device. Closure times were similar between the two devices. Histological assessment scores indicated expected healing response without evidence of perforation, leakage, or abscess formation.
conclusionA novel full-thickness suturing system safely and effectively closed mucosal defects. Lower NASA-TLI scores suggest that the novel suturing device may offer simpler, less demanding use compared to the predicate device, potentially reducing the learning curve for endoscopic suturing procedures.
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.