↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss clip traction for gastric epithelial neoplasia: a pilot study (with video)

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss clip traction for gastric epithelial neoplasia: a pilot study (with video)
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4580-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masao Yoshida, Kohei Takizawa, Hiroyuki Ono, Kimihiro Igarashi, Shinya Sugimoto, Noboru Kawata, Masaki Tanaka, Naomi Kakushima, Sayo Ito, Kenichiro Imai, Kinichi Hotta, Hiroyuki Matsubayashi

Abstract

Providing appropriate tension to the lesion and securing a stable view of the submucosal layer is important for accomplishing successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in gastric cancer. Dental floss clip traction (DFC), a new traction method, is proposed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the efficacy of DFC for gastric ESD. From August to November 2014, a total of 95 patients with 104 gastric epithelial neoplasms underwent DFC-ESD (DFC group). Historical controls treated by conventional ESD (control group) were individually matched to cases at a 1:1 ratio by lesion location, ulcer findings, resected specimen size, and the proficiency of the operator (trainee/expert). The outcomes of the procedure in the two groups were then compared. The mean ± SD procedure time was 43 ± 24 min in the DFC group and 52 ± 30 min in the control group (P < 0.01). Fewer lesions in the DFC group needed >80 min compared with the control group (3-vs-16 cases, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups. Perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in one and four lesions, respectively, in the DFC group, and three and nine in the control group. En bloc resection was achieved in all cases. No significant differences were found regarding curability of ESD between the groups. DFC effectively reduced ESD procedure time without increasing adverse events. DFC is helpful for rapid, safe ESD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Other 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 62%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 6 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,808,979
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,386
of 6,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,799
of 283,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#66
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,053 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 283,207 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 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.