Correction to: Prophylactic clip closure for mucosal defects is associated with reduced adverse events after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity-score matching analysis

Omori, Jun; Goto, Osamu; Habu, Tsugumi; Ishikawa, Yumiko; Kirita, Kumiko; Koizumi, Eriko; Noda, Hiroto; Higuchi, Kazutoshi; Onda, Takeshi; Akimoto, Teppei; Akimoto, Naohiko; Itokawa, Norio; Kaise, Mitsuru; Iwakiri, Katsuhiko

doi:10.1186/s12876-022-02259-0

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their research centred on the use of prophylactic antibiotics, specifically cefixime, in patients undergoing EMR for 10–20 mm lesions. In Japan, Omori et al evaluated 219 participants with an average age of 69.8 years and a predominantly male cohort (138 males to 81 females) 15 . They evaluated the prophylactic clip closure following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) excision of colorectal neoplasms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A subset of patients manifested symptoms of fever, abdominal pain and bleeding as a consequence of this intervention. Omori et al assessed the efficacy of prophylactic endoscopic closure in 219 patients who had undergone an ESD procedure 15 . It was determined that those who received the intervention had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Japan, Omori et al evaluated 219 participants with an average age of 69.8 years and a predominantly male cohort (138 males to 81 females). 15 They evaluated the prophylactic clip closure following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) excision of colorectal neoplasms. Transitioning to Switzerland, Jurt et al conducted a large‐scale study comprising 1516 patients, all of whom were 66 years old, with a slightly higher male representation (823 males versus 690 females).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Omori et al assessed the efficacy of prophylactic endoscopic closure in 219 patients who had undergone an ESD procedure. 15 It was determined that those who received the intervention had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events. Transitioning to the new preventive measure, Jurt et al employed a standard SSI prevention bundle on a larger sample of 1516 patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 In addition to antibiotics, some studies, such as those by Omori et al and Soh et al, examined the utility of prophylactic clip applications and found significant benefits in reducing post-polypectomy complications such as delayed perforation and immediate haemorrhage. 15,17 The limited efficacy of the standardized SSI prevention bundle introduced by Jurt et al demonstrated that not all preventive measures were universally applicable and effective. 16…”

Section: Diversity In Preventive Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Wound infection prevention strategies in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta‐analysis of prophylactic measures

Qi,

Wang,

Shen

et al. 2024

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is associated with the risk of postoperative wound infections, prompting investigations into effective prophylactic measures. This meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various prophylactic interventions in reducing the incidence of wound infections following EMR. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from 2015 to 2022. We included studies that compared the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and antiseptic measures, with clear data on post‐procedure infection rates. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria, and data were extracted for meta‐analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. The meta‐analysis included 3765 patients from eight RCTs. Prophylactic antibiotics (cefixime and cefuroxime) showed moderate to high efficacy, with infection rates as low as 0% and 0.76%. Prophylactic endoscopic closure and clipping showed the highest efficacy, with zero reported infections. The standardized surgical site infection prevention bundle had lower effectiveness, with an infection incidence of 3.83%. The risk of bias assessment indicated potential performance bias due to lack of blinding, but overall evidence quality was upheld by proper random sequence generation and diligent outcome data monitoring. The effectiveness of specific prophylactic measures, notably prophylactic antibiotics and mechanical closure techniques, has been shown in significantly reducing the risk of wound infections following colorectal EMR.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diversity In Preventive Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Wound infection prevention strategies in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta‐analysis of prophylactic measures

Qi,

Wang,

Shen

et al. 2024

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How to track and register adverse events and incidents related to gastrointestinal endoscopy

Casa¹,

Monino²,

Deprez³

et al. 2022

AGEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and study aims: Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures have evolved significantly in the last sixty years revolutionising the approach to the diagnostic and therapeutic spheres of medicine. Despite the advantages of using natural orifices to the bowel, adverse events (AE) may occur following endoscopy. Systematic AE registration is an objective in every realm of quality medicine. Despite the obvious advantage as a quality indicator, tracking endoscopy-related AE is not evident. The current study aimed at tracking all AE of all endoscopic procedures during a 3-month period. The three methods used were voluntary reporting by the endoscopist and by the patient in parallel with retrospective data analysis of patients’ electronic medical records to allow capture of all AE and comparison of the three methods. Patients and methods: During a 3-month period endoscopists and patients were requested to report any possible AE. At the end of the period, a systematic review of all patient files was performed to track all AE related to the endoscopic procedure or the endoscopyrelated anaesthesia. In total 2668 endoscopic procedures were reviewed. Results: The total AE rate was 1.95%. Only half (51.9%) of all AE were voluntarily reported by endoscopists, the other half were extracted from the electronic medical record. There were no patient-reported AE. Although the majority (66.7%) of unreported AE were mild, these findings illustrate that voluntary AE reporting is unreliable. However, the retrospective tracking process proved to be difficult and time-consuming. Conclusions: The current study highlighted that systematic registration of all endoscopy-related AE is feasible, but challenging because of multiple hurdles. More practical methods are warranted to obtain reliable and long-term data as part of endoscopy quality measures.

show abstract

Correction to: Prophylactic clip closure for mucosal defects is associated with reduced adverse events after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity-score matching analysis

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Wound infection prevention strategies in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta‐analysis of prophylactic measures

Wound infection prevention strategies in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta‐analysis of prophylactic measures

How to track and register adverse events and incidents related to gastrointestinal endoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About