Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Efficacy of an internal traction device in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimShortening the procedure time and reducing the incidence of complications are important in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This prospective randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of colorectal ESD with an internal traction-assisted device (IT-ESD) by comparing its outcomes with those of conventional ESD (without internal traction-assisted device) in patients with colorectal epithelial neoplasia.
methodsA total of 201 patients who underwent ESD between March 2020 and April 2023 were prospectively randomized to IT-ESD or conventional ESD. The primary endpoint was procedure time. Secondary endpoints included rates of procedural complications, en bloc resection, curative resection, conversion, and adverse events.
resultsMean procedure time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent IT-ESD than conventional ESD (95.8 ± 59.5 vs. 114.7 ± 68.3 min; p = 0.041). Although ESD trainees tended to take less time to perform IT-ESD than conventional ESD (103.2 ± 63.2 min vs 128.7 ± 76.2 min, p = 0.075), no statistically significant difference was observed. Overall complication rates associated with the procedure did not differ significantly who underwent IT-ESD and conventional ESD (13.0% vs. 17.8%; p = 0.435). Intraoperative perforations tended to be more common in conventional (7.1%) than IT-ESD (2.0%). When stratified by lesion location, procedure time was significantly shorter for IT-ESD than for conventional ESD at colon than rectum (92.9 ± 55.2 vs. 117.3 ± 69.3 min; p = 0.013).
conclusionsIT-ESD significantly reduces procedure time and may enhance procedural efficiency. Furthermore, IT-ESD may contribute to improved safety and is considered particularly advantageous for colonic lesions.
trial registrationThe Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (JRCT; trial registration: jRCT052190089). Registered on December 25, 2019. https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs052190089 jRCT052190089 Version number: 4.0. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number: 2.4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42191957What 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.