These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of endoscopic full-thickness resection and ligation-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection for small (≤ 1.5 cm) gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria.
    Author: Gu L, Wu Y, Yi J, Ouyang M, Liu X.
    Journal: Surg Endosc; 2023 May; 37(5):3796-3806. PubMed ID: 36690893.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: In the treatment of small gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria (SET-MPs), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has been an effective procedure and ligation-assisted EFTR (EFTR-L) seems a feasible and promising operation. We aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes of EFTR-L and EFTR to evaluate effect and safety of either method in the treatment of small (≤ 1.5 cm) gastric SET-MPs. METHODS: Between January 2018 to May 2022, we retrospectively enrolled a total of 119 patients with gastric SET-MPs treated by EFTR-L (79 patients) or EFTR (40 patients) at Xiangya Hospital Central South University. Clinical characteristics, operation efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and operation cost were compared between the 2 groups. Univariate and multiple logistic and linear regressions were applied to analyze the therapeutic outcomes of the procedure, and covariates were adjusted in the multiple analysis. RESULTS: The operation time of EFTR-L group (16.34 ± 5.75 min) was significantly shorter than EFTR group (51.23 ± 21.21 min, P < 0.001), and the difference remained significant after adjusting the covariates (adjusted mean difference, 30.56; 95% confidence interval, 25.65-35.47; P < 0.001). The operation cost of EFTR-L group was lower than EFTR group (1268.52 ± 457.22 vs 1643.18 ± 295.08 $; P < 0.001). The complete resection rate of the EFTR-L group was 98.72% and of the EFTR group 100%. The incidence of abdominal pain in the EFTR-L group (5.06%) was lower than in the EFTR group (27.50%, P = 0.008). A patient in the EFTR group underwent severe pneumoperitoneum and received abdominocentesis during operation. One case of peritonitis occurred in the EFTR-L group but recovered from intensified antibiotic therapy. No delayed blood or perforation occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to EFTR, EFTR-L might be a feasible procedure for small (≤ 1.5 cm) gastric SET-MPs due to the acceptable efficacy, shorter operation time, and lower cost.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]