ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
3D-Printed vs Commercial Distal Caps for ESD: Multicenter Randomized Ex Vivo Noninferiority Trial (ENDOPRINT Trial).
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 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
introductionDistal attachment caps enhance visualization and traction during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) but may influence procedural ergonomics. We conducted the multicenter ENDOPRINT randomized comparative feasibility study with a prespecified noninferiority hypothesis to compare a custom 3D-printed cap made from flexible medical-grade resin with a standard commercial cap using an ex vivo porcine model across tertiary centers in Prague, Olomouc, and Boston.
methodsAcross 3 centers, 99 ex vivo ESD procedures (33 per site) were randomized 1:1 to a 3D-printed cap or a commercial Olympus cap. The primary end point was procedure time; secondary end points included lesion size, en bloc resection, technical success, ergonomic parameters (visibility, scope manipulation, tissue retraction), cap handling, and adverse events. Group allocation was balanced across sites.
resultsMedian procedure time was identical for both caps (17.3 minutes each; P = 0.952), remaining well within the predefined 20% noninferiority margin, and lesion sizes were comparable between groups. En bloc resection and technical success were achieved in 100% of cases in both arms. Ergonomic assessments favored the 3D-printed cap, with higher operator ratings for visibility, manipulation, and tissue retraction, all with P < 0.001 and consistent across all centers. Adverse events were uncommon and similar between groups. Procedure time correlated with lesion size ( P = 0.001). DISCUSSION: The ENDOPRINT trial demonstrated that a 3D-printed distal cap is as efficient and safe as a commercial cap during ESD, while providing superior visibility, scope control, and tissue traction. These results support the potential of customizable 3D-printed accessories with substantially lower per-unit material costs compared with commercial devices for clinical practice and training, warranting further in vivo validation and formal cost-effectiveness studies.
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.