Facilitating endoscopic full‐thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors with a novel snare traction method (with video)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a promising technique in treating gastric submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria (SMT-MPs). However, it is challenging without counter-traction. METHODS: A snare was inserted through the forceps channel to grasp the part of the tumor or the mucosa connected to the tumor. The outer sheath and inner wire of snare in vitro were fixed by a pair of hemostatic forceps. The handle of snare was cut off, and the endoscope was pulled out without affecting the traction state of snare. Snare-assisted EFTR (EFTR-S) was then performed with counter-traction. One hundred and four patients with gastric SMT-MPs who received the procedure of EFTR with or without snare traction method were retrospectively analyzed using univariate and multiple regressions, and covariates were adjusted in the multiple analysis. RESULTS: Compared with EFTR group (n = 36), EFTR-S group (n = 68) showed a higher operative success rate (95.6% vs 72.2%, P = 0.001), a lower incidence of intraoperative hemorrhage (4.4% vs 16.7%, P = 0.038) and shorter operative time among operative successes (53.6 ± 16.6 min vs 67.7 ± 33.4 min, P < 0.001). Univariate logistic analysis showed that snare traction represented a significant factor, which could improve operative successful rate (odds ratio, 8.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 32.7; P = 0.002). Postoperative outcomes and adverse events among operative successes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This novel snare traction method may provide an effective counter-traction and reduce the difficulty of EFTR for gastric SMT-MPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".