Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 734 
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Comparison between laparoscopic and endoscopic resections for gastric submucosal tumors


1 Medical College of Qingdao University; Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China
2 Medical College of Qingdao University; Department of Infectious Diseases, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China
3 Medical College of Qingdao University; Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Center, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China
4 Department of Infectious Diseases, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China
5 Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China

Correspondence Address:
Huiguang Xue,
Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, 59 Haier Road, Qingdao 266100, Shandong Province
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_412_18

PMID: 30618440

Background/Aims: Open resection/laparoscopic resection (LR) is the traditional treatment of gastric submucosal tumor (G-SMT). The endoscopic resection (ER) technology provides good results for G-SMT treatment but lacks sufficient evidence-based evidence. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of ER [endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR)] and LR [laparoscopic wedge resection (LWR) and laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG)] for G-SMT. Patients and Methods: From January 2013 to January 2017, data of patients with G-SMT with tumor diameter <5 cm were collected from the database of The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University and classified based on surgical methods. Demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes, complications and tumor recurrence were recorded and compared. Results: Overall, 275 patients with G-SMT were enrolled: 152 underwent ER (ESD, n = 65; ESE, n = 23; EFR, n = 61) and 123 underwent LR (LWR, n = 93; LSG, n = 30). Age, sex, R0 resection rate, tumor location, type, recurrence and complications were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The ER group had a significantly higher percentage of intraluminal tumor (94.1% vs 62.4%) and smaller tumor size (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 3.4 ± 1.2 cm) than the LR group. The ER group had less muscular tumors than the LR group (54.6% vs 70.7%). The ER group had no serosal tumor. The ER group had shorter hospitalization time, postoperative hospital stay and diet recovery time. The LR group had shorter operation time, less cost and less blood loss. Conclusion: ER and LR are safe and effective treatments for SMT. For small intraluminally growing SMT, ER is better than LR.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Zhang H
    -  Huang X
    -  Qu C
    -  Bian C
    -  Xue H
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed325    
    PDF Downloaded5    

Recommend this journal