A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison Between Preincision Traction and On-Demand Traction in Assisting Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. | LitMetric

Introduction: Adequate exposure of the dissection site is very important for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the preincision traction (PIT) method using an internal clip-with-spring device in comparison with the conventional on-demand traction (ODT) method in assisting colorectal ESD.

Methods: This was a prospective nested case-control study. A total of 26 patients for PIT-ESD and other 26 patients for ODT-ESD were involved. Data on clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results: The en bloc resection rate (both 100%) and curative resection rate (92.3% vs 96.2%) showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Compared with ODT-ESD, PIT-ESD significantly reduced the procedure time (29.8 ± 18.4 vs 57.4 ± 33.7 minutes, P = 0.001) and submucosal injection volume (49.6 ± 32.3 vs 70.8 ± 37.6 mL, P = 0.034), decreased the rate of intraoperative bleeding (26.9% vs 57.7%, P = 0.025) and muscular injury (7.7% vs 34.6%, P = 0.038), and shortened the postoperative hospital stay (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.5 ± 1.2, P = 0.015).

Discussion: The PIT method could significantly improve the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780113PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ctg.0000000000000539DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

preincision traction
8
on-demand traction
8
assisting colorectal
8
colorectal endoscopic
8
endoscopic submucosal
8
submucosal dissection
8
safety efficacy
8
pit method
8
resection rate
8
comparison preincision
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!