ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of hybrid versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for non-ampullary duodenal submucosal tumors.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) is established to be curable and safe for colorectal submucosal tumors (SMTs). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of H-ESD and conventional ESD (C-ESD) for non-ampullary duodenal SMTs (NAD-SMTs).
methodsFrom September 2017 to December 2024, patients with NAD-SMTs treated with H-ESD or C-ESD at the Endoscopy Center of Zhongshan Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. After propensity score matching (PSM), baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and follow-up were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsWith similar baseline characteristics between the two groups after PSM, the H-ESD group had a shorter procedural duration (41 vs. 67 min, P < 0.001) compared to the C-ESD group. The en bloc resection rates were 93.8 and 92.2%, and the R0 resection rates were 90.6 and 89.1%, respectively. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the H-ESD group had a lower overall adverse event (AE) rate. The H-ESD group had 1 case of abdominal effusion and 1 case of febrile episode, whereas the C-ESD group had 2 cases of intraprocedural bleeding, 1 case of intraoperative muscle layer injury, 1 case of pneumoperitoneum, 1 case of delayed bleeding, and 1 case of abdominal effusion. During the median follow-up period, no recurrence occurred in the H-ESD group, while one local recurrence was detected in the C-ESD group.
conclusionsBoth H-ESD and C-ESD were safe and effective for NAD-SMTs; however, H-ESD resulted in a reduced procedure time without increasing the occurrence of AEs compared with C-ESD. Therefore, H-ESD may be recommended as a treatment for NAD-SMTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834185What 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.