| Title |
Non-exposure simple suturing endoscopic full-thickness resection (NESS-EFTR) versus laparoscopic wedge resection: a randomized controlled trial in a porcine model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5921-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hong Man Yoon, Chan Gyoo Kim, Jong Yeul Lee, Soo-Jeong Cho, Myeong-Cherl Kook, Bang Wool Eom, Keun Won Ryu, Young-Woo Kim, Il Ju Choi |
| Abstract |
Current endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) methods produce transmural communication and expose the tumor to the peritoneum. An EFTR method with a simple suturing technique that does not expose the gastric mucosa to the peritoneum (non-exposure simple suturing, NESS) was recently developed. To date, there have been no prospective studies that compare EFTR with laparoscopic wedge resection in human or animal. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between NESS-EFTR and laparoscopic wedge resection (LWR) using the linear staplers in a randomized animal study. NESS-EFTR includes steps of laparoscopic seromuscular suturing, EFTR of the inverted stomach wall, and endoscopic mucosal suturing with endoloops and clips. Sixteen pigs underwent NESS-EFTR (n = 8) or LWR (n = 8). The resected locations were the cardia, fundus, upper body anterior and greater curvature, antrum lesser and greater curvature side. The pigs were killed 3 weeks after surgery. Rates of successful complete resection (en-bloc resection with clear margins), successful closure, and complications were evaluated. The complete resection rates in the NESS-EFTR and LWR groups were 100 and 75%, respectively (P = 0.467). All wounds were successfully closed in both groups. Resected tissues were significantly larger in the LWR group (mean ± SD: 8.0 ± 0.8 cm vs. 4.4 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the LWR group (31.7 ± 10.0 min vs. 118.1 ± 23.4 min, P < 0.001). Early deaths due to complications only occurred in the LWR group (a leakage at cardia and a stenosis at the antrum lesser curvature side). Incomplete resection and complications were occurred in only LWR group. NESS-EFTR was feasible and safe in animal. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 67% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Engineering | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,482,347
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,831
of 6,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,054
of 329,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#95
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.