ArticleVideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy2026
Guide to endoscope selection for peroral endoscopic myotomy procedures.
Article in VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is the standard of care for achalasia treatment. Although prior studies have addressed technique, electrosurgical settings, and accessories, there is limited guidance on endoscope selection. This review highlights key characteristics, advantages, and limitations of commonly used endoscopes for POEM. Methods: Endoscopes from 3 major vendors were reviewed and compared across several parameters: distal outer diameter (OD), accessory channel size and position, working length, tip angulation, and ergonomics. Results: Scopes with a 3.2-mm accessory channel demonstrated greater suction capacity than 2.8-mm channels when accessory tools are in place. Vendor 1 (Olympus, Center Valley, Pa, USA) offers a slim pediatric colonoscope with a 3.2-mm channel and high maneuverability, maintaining a comparable OD to other scopes. Newer diagnostic endoscopes from vendor 2 (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan), including slim designs with 7.9-mm OD and 3.2-mm channels, provide enhanced suction and tip control. Conclusions: Various endoscopes are suitable for POEM, each with specific tradeoffs. Slim colonoscopes offer better maneuverability but may limit device compatibility. Intermediate-length scopes and newer 3.2-mm diagnostic scopes improve function and flexibility. Endoscopy units performing third-space procedures should consider adopting diagnostic scopes with 3.2-mm channels, which may represent a future standard of care.
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.