ArticleEndoscopy international open2026
Adverse events associated with full-thickness resection devices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: National postmarketing surveillance study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using dedicated full-thickness resection devices (FTRDs) offers a minimally invasive option for complex gastrointestinal lesions involving the muscularis propria. Despite growing use, safety data remain limited, which constrains guidelines and uptake. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of FDA MAUDE reports from January 2014 to March 2025. Reports involving FTRDs were reviewed to classify device malfunctions and patient adverse events (AEs). Variables were analyzed using SPSS software. Results: Sixty-eight FTRD cases were identified. Colonic FTRD was used in 79.4% and gastroduodenal and diagnostic sets in 10.3% each. Device issues (n = 69) included clip non-deployment (79.7%), snare malfunctions (10.1%), and clip detachment (5.8%); grasper malfunctions (2.9%), improper clip placement (1.5%), and thread rupture (1.5%) were also reported. Patient AEs (n = 77) were dominated by colonic perforations (69.5%). Delayed gastric and delayed colonic perforations occurred in three cases each (3.9%). Other events included duodenal perforation (2.6%), hemorrhage (2.6%), and esophageal perforation with mediastinitis (2.6%). Four deaths (5.2%) occurred, two from unrecognized esophageal perforation with mediastinitis and sepsis and two after surgery in patients with significant comorbidities. Surgery was required in 78.7%. Endoscopic clipping alone succeeded in 3.3%. Endoscopic or over the scope clipping followed by surgery was used in 16.4%. Conclusions: EFTR with FTRD is associated with device malfunctions and patient complications, with colonic perforation being the most frequently reported complication. Careful patient selection and procedural expertise are critical to reduce risk.
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.