ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Dye-free versus dye-containing submucosal injection solutions in ESD for colorectal LST: a multi-center retrospective study on efficacy and safety.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough various submucosal injection solutions are used in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), whether they should routinely contain a staining agent remains debated. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dye-free submucosal injection solutions (DFSIs) versus dye-containing submucosal injection solution (DCSIs) for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).
methodsThis retrospective study included 526 patients with colorectal LSTs who underwent ESD between January 2021 and December 2025. Patients were divided into two groups based on the injection solution used: DFSIs (n = 138) and DCSIs (n = 388). The primary safety endpoint was severe intraoperative bleeding. Primary efficacy endpoints included total procedure time, mucosal dissection time, and submucosal dissection speed. Subgroup analyses were performed according to tumor characteristics and technical factors.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. While R0 resection, perforation, and postoperative complication rates were similar (all P > 0.05), the DFSIs group was associated with a significantly lower rate of severe intraoperative bleeding (0.0 vs. 3.9%, P = 0.015). Sensitivity analysis using Firth's penalized logistic regression confirmed a reduced odds of severe bleeding associated with DFSIs (odds ratio 0.096, 95% CI 0.002-0.960, P = 0.026). Subgroup analyses revealed that DFSIs were associated with a statistically significant reduction in total procedure time for lesions ≥ 3.5 cm (P = 0.005), left colon lesions (P = 0.007), fibrotic lesions (P = 0.040), and when traction (P = 0.009) or pocket-creation methods (P = 0.024) were used. Mucosal dissection time was also shorter for lesions ≥ 3.5 cm (P = 0.001), left colon lesions (P = 0.008), fibrotic lesions (P = 0.027), and with traction method (P = 0.036).
conclusionsDFSIs are safe and effective for colorectal LST ESD. Despite comparable overall outcomes, exploratory subgroup analyses suggested potential advantages of DFSIs in complex cases, including shorter procedure times for larger or fibrotic lesions.
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.