ArticleThe Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology2026
Impact of Swift Versus Spray Coagulation on Procedural Outcomes in Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
Article in The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established curative treatment for early gastric neoplasms; however, procedure-related bleeding remains a frequent and clinically significant complication. Electrosurgical settings, particularly the choice of coagulation mode, represent potentially modifiable procedural factors that may influence bleeding control and procedure efficiency during gastric ESD. The current study aimed to compare procedure time and procedure related complications, particularly bleeding, between spray coagulation and swift coagulation modes in patients undergoing gastric ESD. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study included 194 patients who underwent gastric ESD between 2021 and 2025. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the electrosurgical coagulation mode used during the procedure: spray coagulation (n = 113) and swift coagulation (n = 81). Procedure time, intraprocedural and delayed bleeding, use of hemostatic forceps, perforation, post-ESD electrocoagulation syndrome (PECS), recurrence, and stricture formation were analyzed and compared between groups.
resultsProcedure time was significantly shorter in the spray coagulation group compared with the swift coagulation group (38.2 ± 20.7 vs. 44.4 ± 19.1 minutes; P = .0003). Overall intraprocedural bleeding occurred less frequently in the spray coagulation group (44.2% vs. 75.3%; P < .001), and the need for hemostatic forceps was significantly reduced. Severe bleeding events were rare and comparable between groups. Rates of perforation, delayed bleeding, PECS, recurrence, and stricture formation did not differ significantly between groups. Procedural success rates were high and comparable between the groups (93.8% in both groups; P = .99). Similarly, en bloc resection rates (92.9% vs. 92.6%; P = .94) and complete (R0) resection rates (91.2% vs. 91.4%; P = .97) were comparable between the spray and swift coagulation groups.
conclusionSpray coagulation during gastric ESD is associated with improved bleeding control and shorter procedure time compared with swift coagulation, without increasing procedure-related complications. Optimization of electrosurgical coagulation mode may enhance procedural efficiency and safety during gastric ESD. Cite this article as: Bas B, Küçükdemirci Ö, Kandemir A, et al. Impact of swift versus spray coagulation on procedural outcomes in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2026;37(8):847-857.
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.