ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Conservative management of delayed perforation after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a single-center experience.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelayed perforation is a rare but serious complication of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing conservative management for delayed perforation after colorectal ESD.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 21 patients with delayed perforation after colorectal ESD treated between May 2011 and May 2025. Among them, 19 patients who received initial conservative management were included. These patients were divided into two groups: the Success Group (SG, n = 14), where conservative management succeeded, and the Failure Group (FG, n = 5), which required conversion to surgery. A comparative analysis of clinical, endoscopic, and laboratory findings between the two groups was performed.
resultsCompared with the FG, the SG had lower baseline serum creatinine (median 67.0 vs. 90.0 µmol/L, P = 0.023), higher baseline albumin (mean 41.2 vs. 36.4 g/L, P = 0.042), and a significantly higher rate of complete endoscopic closure (P = 0.013) during the procedure. During conservative management, the SG exhibited a slower rise and a more rapid decline in serum procalcitonin (PCT) levels compared to the FG.
conclusionsIn this small single-center cohort, successful conservative management of delayed perforation after colorectal ESD appeared to be associated with adequate intraoperative defect closure and a relatively better baseline physiological profile, including lower preprocedural serum creatinine and higher preprocedural albumin levels. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory associations rather than definitive predictive indicators. Serial monitoring of serum PCT may provide additional information during conservative management, but treatment escalation should be determined through comprehensive clinical, laboratory, imaging, and multidisciplinary assessment.
trial registrationClinical trial number not applicable.
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.