ArticleMiddle East journal of digestive diseases2025
Retrospective Cohort Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Middle East journal of digestive diseases, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) lesions, including precancerous and early-stage cancerous lesions, are a significant global health concern. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment option, offering complete en bloc resection with lower recurrence rates compared with traditional surgical methods. However, the efficacy and safety of ESD, particularly in diverse clinical settings, require further evaluation. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of ESD for GI lesions in a single-center cohort, focusing on complete resection rates, complications, and recurrence. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Ayatollah Rouhani Hospital in Babol, Iran, from 2018 to 2023. The study included 45 patients with GI lesions who underwent ESD, with 39 patients receiving en bloc resection and six undergoing piecemeal resection. Data on patient demographics, lesion characteristics, resection outcomes, and complications were collected. Follow-up endoscopic examinations were performed every 3 to 6 months to monitor for recurrence or residual lesions. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 26, with descriptive statistics, Results: The mean age of participants was 61.92 years (±11.19), with a male predominance (57.7%). Lesions were primarily located in the stomach (46.6%), rectum (26.6%), colon (20%), and esophagus (6.6%). The complete resection (R0) rate was 95.1%, with no significant differences based on lesion location. Complications included three cases of perforation (6.6%) and three cases of immediate bleeding (6.6%), all of which were managed endoscopically without surgical intervention. Recurrence occurred in two cases (4.4%), both in lesions larger than 2 cm. En bloc resection demonstrated lower recurrence (2.5%) and perforation rates (5.1%) compared with piecemeal resection (16.7% recurrence, 16.7% perforation). Conclusion: ESD is a safe and effective technique for the complete en bloc resection of GI lesions, with high success rates and low recurrence. En bloc resection is superior to piecemeal resection, particularly for larger lesions. While complications such as perforation and bleeding are rare, they can be managed endoscopically. These findings support the use of ESD as a viable alternative to surgery, especially for elderly patients or those with surgical contraindications. Further multicenter studies with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these results and optimize ESD techniques globally.
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.