ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Comparison of Endoscopic Cap External Snare Resection (ECESR) and Endoscopic Muscularis Dissection (EMD) for Small Gastric Submucosal Tumors (≤ 12 mm) Emerging from the Muscularis propria.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNowadays, Endoscopic Muscularis Dissection (EMD) and Endoscopic Cap External Snare Resection (ECESR) are utilized as effective techniques for removing small submucosal tumors. Herein, We aimed to clarify the efficacy and outcomes of ECESR vs EMD to determine the optimal minimally invasive approaches for managing small (≤ 12 mm) Gastric Submucosal Tumors (sGSMT) arising from the muscularis propria (MP) layer.
methodsThis study retrospectively included data from patients who underwent ECESR or EMD to excise sGSMT of 12 mm or less. The propensity score matching (PSM) algorithm mitigated selection bias using age, gender, tumor size, location, and growth patterns for one-to-one matching. Finally, 96 patients were divided into ECESR (48) and EMD (48) groups. Clinicopathologic characteristics, procedural outcomes (procedure time, tumor resection time, and R0 resection), adverse events, length of hospital stay, and costs were compared between the two groups.
resultsAfter PSM, the ECESR group experienced significantly shorter procedure time and tumor resection time (23 [21, 22] vs 47 [40-56] min; 5 [5, 6] vs 27 [26-30] min, P < 0.001). The ECESR group exhibited significantly shorter hospital stays (P < 0.001) and lower operation costs (P < 0.001) compared to the EMD group. Both groups achieved high rates of complete (R0) resection, with no statistically significant difference observed. Importantly, no recurrence or metastasis was observed in either group during follow-up. The incidence of adverse events, including perforation and postoperative complications, was comparable between groups, and no statistically significant differences were identified..
conclusionsFor sGSMT (≤ 12 mm), ECESR exhibits shorter procedure and tumor resection times, speedier recovery, lower operating costs, and shorter hospital stays compared to EMD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268359What 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.