A modified exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection: traction-assisted resection while defect closing

AIMS

Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (Eo-EFTR) has been proven to be effective and economical for patients with gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs), showing great prospects. However, the poor operational field of view, the risk of tumors falling into the peritoneal cavity, and especially the difficulties in defect closure limited its widespread applicability. Herein, we described a modified traction-assisted Eo-EFTR technique, aiming to simplify both the dissection and defect closure procedures.

METHODS

There were 19 patients who underwent the modified Eo-EFTR for SMTs in Chinese PLA General Hospital enrolled in the study. Following a two-thirds circumferential full-thickness incision, a clip with dental floss was anchored to the resected part of the tumor surface. With the dental floss traction, the gastric defect was reshaped as a "V"-shape which facilitated the deployment of clips to close the defect. The defect closing and tumor dissecting procedures were then performed alternately. Patients' demographics, tumor characteristics, and therapeutic outcomes were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

All tumors had an R0 resection. The median procedure time was 43 min (range 28-89min). No severe adverse events occured. Two patients experienced transient fever and three patients complained of mild abdominal pain on the first day after operation. All patients recovered on the next day with conservative management. No residual lesion or recurrence was reported during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and practicability of the modified technique might provide the possibility for wide clinical applications of Eo-EFTR in gastric SMTs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery for Gastric Submucosal Tumor Near Esophagogastric Junction With Sliding Hiatal Hernia

The usefulness of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) for gastric submucosal tumors in the cardiac region has been reported in recent years. However, LECS for submucosal tumors at the esophagogastric junction with hiatal sliding esophageal hernia has not been reported, and its validity as a treatment method is unknown. The patient was a 51-year-old man with a growing submucosal tumor in the cardiac region. Surgical resection was indicated because a definitive diagnosis of the tumor was not determined. The lesion was a luminal protrusion tumor, located on the posterior wall of the stomach 20 mm from the esophagogastric junction, and had a maximum diameter of 16.3 mm on endoscopic ultrasound examination. Because of the hiatal hernia, the lesion could not be detected from the gastric side by endoscopy. Local resection was considered to be feasible because the resection line did not extend into the esophageal mucosa and the resection site could be less than half the circumference of the lumen. The submucosal tumor was resected completely and safely by LECS. The tumor was diagnosed as a gastric smooth muscle tumor finally. Nine months after surgery, a follow-up endoscopy showed reflux esophagitis. LECS was a useful technique for submucosal tumors of the cardiac region with hiatal hernia, but fundoplication might be considered for preventing backflow of gastric acid.

Factors predicting technical difficulties during endoscopic submucosal excavation for gastric submucosal tumor

Objective

Endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) has been established as an effective method for removal of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). The aim of the present study was to explore risk factors for technical difficulties in ESE.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we collected clinical data from patients who underwent ESE for gastric SMTs. Difficult ESE was defined as a procedure time ≥90 minutes, piecemeal resection, and/or occurrence of major adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the risk factors for a difficult ESE.

Results

ESE was successfully performed in 96.5% (195/202) of patients from April 2011 to December 2019. The average tumor size was 17.41 mm, and en bloc resection was achieved in 97.4% of patients (190/195). Five patients (2.56%, 5/195) had complications, including two with delayed bleeding, two with fever, and one with chest pain accompanying ST-T changes in an electrocardiogram. Twenty-four patients (11.88%, 24/202) had a difficult ESE. Logistic analysis showed that outgrowth behavior and an inexperienced surgeon were risk factors for a difficult ESE.

Conclusion

ESE may be safe and effective to treat patients with gastric SMTs. Outgrowth behavior and an inexperienced surgeon were risk factors for a difficult ESE.

Preoperative imaging of gastric GISTs underestimates pathologic tumor size: A retrospective, single institution analysis

BACKGROUND

How well imaging size agrees with pathologic size of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is unknown. GIST risk stratification is based on pathologic size, location, and mitotic rate. To inform decision making, the size discrepancy between imaging and pathology for gastric GISTs was investigated.

METHODS

Imaging and pathology reports were reviewed for 113 patients. Bland-Altman analyses and intraclass correlation (ICC) assessed agreement of imaging and pathology. Changes in clinical risk category due to size discrepancy were identified.

RESULTS

Computed tomography (CT) (n = 110) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (n = 50) underestimated pathologic size for gastric GISTs by 0.42 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.11, 0.73), p = 0.008 and 0.54 cm, 95% CI: (0.25, 0.82), p < 0.001, respectively. ICCs were 0.94 and 0.88 for CT and EUS, respectively. For GISTs ≤ 3 cm, size underestimation was 0.24 cm for CT (n = 28), 95% CI: (0.01, 0.47), p = 0.039 and 0.56 cm for EUS (n = 26), 95% CI: (0.27, 0.84), p < 0.0001. ICCs were 0.72 and 0.55 for CT and EUS, respectively. Spearman's correlation was ≥0.84 for all groups. For GISTs ≤ 3 cm, 6/28 (21.4% p = 0.01) on CT and 7/26 (26.9% p = 0.005) on EUS upgraded risk category using pathologic size versus imaging size. No GISTs ≤ 3 cm downgraded risk categories. Size underestimation persisted for GISTs ≤ 2 cm on EUS (0.39 cm, 95% CI: [0.06, 0.72], p = 0.02, post hoc analysis).

CONCLUSION

Imaging, particularly EUS, underestimates gastric GIST size. Caution should be exercised using imaging alone to risk-stratify gastric GISTs, and to decide between surveillance versus surgery.

Reduced-port surgery with the cowboy technique for a gastric submucosal tumor

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is considered safe and effective for a gastric submucosal tumors, and reduced-port surgery (RPS) is being increasingly performed to treat these tumors. Herein, we present laparoscopic RPS with the cowboy technique for the removal of gastric submucosal tumors.

MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

A single-port access device was inserted at the naval (three 5-mm trocars), and a 5-mm trocar was inserted in the left lateral abdominal wall. A ligature was placed at the neck of the tumor, the loop was then tightened, and the knot was finally secured-a process referred to as the cowboy technique. This technique enables complete surgical excision and can be used for exophytic submucosal tumors of the stomach. Four patients underwent RPS with this technique, and the outcomes were good.

DISCUSSION

Our cowboy technique enables the safe full-thickness excision of gastric submucosal tumors with exophytic growth and is very useful in performing RPS.

Usefulness of tumor traction with a snare and endoclips in gastric submucosal tumor resection: a propensity-score-matching analysis

Background

Endoscopic resection, including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR), was used to resect small gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). Our team explored a method of tumor traction using a snare combined with endoclips to assist in the resection of SMTs. This study aims to explore the safety and effectiveness of the method.

Methods

This research performed a propensity-score-matching (PSM) analysis to compare ESD/EFR assisted by a snare combined with endoclips (ESD/EFR with snare traction) with conventional ESD/EFR for the resection of gastric SMTs. Comparisons were made between the two groups, including operative time, en bloc resection rate, perioperative complications, and operation-related costs.

Results

A total of 253 patients with gastric SMTs resected between January 2012 and March 2019 were included in this study. PSM yielded 51 matched pairs. No significant differences were identified between the two groups in perioperative complications or the costs of disposable endoscopic surgical accessories. However, the ESD/EFR-with-snare-traction group had a shorter median operative time (39 vs 60 min, P = 0.005) and lower rate of en bloc resection (88.2% vs 100%, P = 0.027).

Conclusions

ESD/EFR with snare traction demonstrated a higher efficiency and en bloc resection rate for gastric SMTs, with no increases in perioperative complications and the costs of endoscopic surgical accessories. Therefore, the method seems an appropriate choice for the resection of gastric SMTs.

Comparison between laparoscopic and endoscopic resections for gastric submucosal tumors

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.

Laparoendoscopic Transgastric Resection of Prepyloric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor

This case report describes an 83-year-old woman with multiple comorbidities who presented with melena and coffee-ground emesis with diagnostic studies evident for a large prepyloric gastrointestinal stromal tumor. She underwent combined laparoendoscopic transgastric resection surgery for the tumor, performed by a team of gastroenterologist and thoracic surgeon with a successful outcome. The case and videos in this report provide a descriptive demonstration of the steps leading up to the surgical intervention followed by a step-by-step illustration of the combined surgical technique, thus highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary approach for optimal treatment of prepyloric gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland mucosa type localized in the submucosa: A case report

RATIONALE

Gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland type (GA-FG) is a new histological type of gastric cancer manifesting with differentiation into a fundic gland. Furthermore, gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland mucosa type (GA-FGM) is a tumor that shows differentiation into not only a fundic gland but also foveolar epithelium and a mucous gland. These tumors tend to invade the submucosal layer. However, no cases of these tumors being localized only in the submucosa have been reported. Here, we present a case of GA-FGM localized in the submucosa and describe the cytological features of this tumor. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of GA-FGM localized in the submucosa.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A man in his early 70s was referred to our institution because of the detection of a gastric submucosal tumor during a health checkup.

DIAGNOSES

Gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland mucosa type.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and total gastrectomy with lymph node dissection were performed.

OUTCOMES

The FNA specimen showed epithelial cells with low-grade atypia. In the ESD specimen, adenocarcinoma showing a gastric fundic gland mucosa-like morphology was observed. Immunohistochemical analysis showed positive staining for pepsinogen I, H+/K+-adenosine triphosphatase, MUC6, and MUC5AC and negative staining for MUC2 and CD10, indicating tumor differentiation into fundic gland mucosa. Therefore, the tumor was diagnosed as GA-FGM, with localization in the submucosal layer. Total gastrectomy and lymph node dissection were performed because of the positive margins of the ESD specimen. Neither residual tumor nor lymph node metastasis was detected; however, many foci of heterotopic gastric glands (HGGs) were observed in the gastric wall, suggesting that GA-FGM arose from an HGG. After treatment, no recurrence was observed during a 1-year follow-up period.

LESSONS

Various tumors may arise from HGGs. Furthermore, when an FNA specimen shows gastric fundic gland mucosa-like epithelial cells with weak atypia, the possibility of GA-FG and GA-FGM should be considered.

Comparison between endoscopic and laparoscopic removal of gastric submucosal tumor

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A retrospective study was conducted to compare two resection methods, namely, endoscopic resection (ER) procedures (endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD], endoscopic muscularis dissection [EMD], and endoscopic full-thickness resection [EFTR]) and laparoscopic resections (LR) (laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery [LECS] and laparoscopic wedge resection).

METHODS

Seventy-three patients who underwent ER (N = 33: ESD, N = 4; EMD, N = 15; EFTR, N = 14) or LR (N = 39: LECS, N = 16; wedge resection, N = 23) for gastric submucosal tumor (G-SMT) smaller than 50 mm were included in this study. Patient/tumor characteristics and intra/postoperative factors were compared between the ER and LR groups.

RESULTS

The ER group had a significantly higher percentage of intraluminal growing type of tumor (100% vs 41%) and smaller tumor size (23 vs 33 mm) than the LR group. The ER group had a significantly shorter operative time (93 vs 145 min) and less blood loss (13 vs 30 mL) than the LR group. In the ER group, three patients who had tumors located on the anterior wall of the stomach required laparoscopic closure after EFTR because of difficulty in endoscopic closure of the gastric-wall defect. Postoperative complication rates and duration of postoperative hospital stays did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ER may be technically feasible, safe, less invasive, and oncologically appropriate options for selected patients with the intraluminal growing type of G-SMT smaller than 30 mm. EFTR may be more reasonable alternatives to LR in selected patients with a small G-SMT located on the lesser curvature side.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric schwannoma

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic resection play an important role in gastric submucosal tumor. However, there were few articles regarding EUS and endoscopic resection of gastric schwannomas. Our aim was to evaluate the role of EUS and endoscopic resection in treating gastric schwannomas.We retrospectively reviewed 14 patients between March 2012 and April 2016 with gastric schwannomas and who received EUS and endoscopic resection. EUS characteristics, endoscopic resection, tumor features, and follow-up were evaluated in all the patients.Fourteen patients were enrolled in the present study. The patients' ages ranged from 25 to 72 years (mean age, 52.6 years). On EUS, all tumors were originating from muscularis propria and hypoechoic. Ten tumors have the extraluminal growth patterns and 4 tumors have the intraluminal growth patterns. Marginal halos were observed in 7 lesions. No cystic change and calcification were found inside the lesions. Complete endoscopic resection was performed in all the patients with no complications occurring in any patients. No recurrence or metastases was found in all patients during the follow-up period.Gastric schwannoma has some characteristics on EUS, but it is difficult to differentiate gastric schwannoma from gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Endoscopic resection is an effective and safe treatment for gastric schwannoma with an excellent follow-up outcome.

Endoscopic resection of gastric submucosal tumors: A comparison of endoscopic nontunneling with tunneling resection and a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic tunneling resection is a relatively novel endoscopic technology for removing gastric submucosal tumors. Our study aimed to compare the differences between tunneling and nontunneling resection for gastric submucosal tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Resections of gastric submucosal tumors (n = 97) performed from 2010 to 2015 at our endoscopy center were reviewed, and PubMed was searched for clinical studies on gastric submucosal tumor resection by endoscopic nontunneling and tunneling techniques.

RESULTS

At our endoscopy center, nontunneling (Group 1) and tunneling resection (Group 2) were performed for 78 and 19 submucosal tumors, respectively; median tumor diameters were 15 and 20 mm (P = 0.086), median procedural times were 50 and 75 min (P = 0.017), successful resection rates were 94.9% (74/78) and 89.5% (17/19) (P = 0.334), and en bloc resection rates were 95.9% (71/74) and 94.1% (16/17) (P = 0.569) in the Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Postoperative fever, delayed hemorrhage and perforation, hospitalization time, and hospitalization expense were statistically similar between the 2 groups. A literature review on gastric submucosal tumor resection suggested that the en bloc resection rates of the two methods for tumors with a median diameter of 15-30 mm were also high, and there were no relapses during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoscopic nontunneling and tunneling resection seem to be effective and safe methods for removing relatively small gastric submucosal tumors. Compared with endoscopic nontunneling, tunneling resection does not seem to have distinct advantages for gastric submucosal tumors, and has a longer mean operative time.

Needlescopic intragastric surgery facilitated by newly developed 2mm instruments

BACKGROUND

Intragastric surgery is a percutaneous endoluminal surgery in the stomach aimed at resection of tumors located at the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). We developed needlescopic intragastric surgery performed via 2 mm, 2 mm, and 5 mm ports (PEIGS-225).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In cooperation with Niti-On Co., Ltd. we developed a series of 2 mm instruments including grasping forceps, a cannula, a laparoscope, an electrocautery, scissors, and a needle holder.

OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE

Two 2 mm trocars and a 5 mm one are inserted into the gastric lumen percutaneously. Intragastric procedures are performed by the instruments brought through those three ports. The specimen is extracted via the esophageal-oral route. The defect in the gastroesophageal wall is closed by hand-suture. After the intragastric procedure, the 5 mm stab wound on the gastric wall is closed by hand-suture, while the 2 mm wounds are left untreated.

PATIENTS

Between March and August 2015 PEIGS-225 was performed in five patients.

RESULTS

There was no operative conversion. The mean operation time was 96 minutes. There were no perioperative complications. Pathological findings indicated that the margin was negative in all cases.

CONCLUSION

Needlescopic intragasric surgery performed via the smallest access (2 mm, 2 mm, 5 mm) is enabled by the 2 mm instruments developed by us.

Diagnostic potential of endoscopic ultrasonography-elastography for gastric submucosal tumors: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Qualitative diagnosis for gastric submucosal tumors (SMT) is not easy. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in combination with EUS-elastography (EUS-EG) is reported useful for qualitatively diagnosing pancreatic tissues. We prospectively studied whether EUS-EG could be useful in qualitative diagnosis of gastric SMT.

METHODS

We prospectively registered 25 consecutive patients with gastric SMT diagnosed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy and carried out qualitative evaluations using EUS-EG (May 2013 to March 2015) followed by histopathological diagnosis using EUS-FNA or endoscopic mucosal cutting biopsy. Elastic scores of gastric SMT were compared to the cytological diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 25 patients, 22 had a confirmed cytological diagnosis. Regarding the Giovannini elastic score, of three patients with aberrant pancreas, one was score 1 and two were score 2; of eight patients with leiomyoma, seven were score 2 and one was score 3. Both of two patients with schwannoma were score 4. Of nine patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor, six were score 4 and three were score 5. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is harder than other types of gastric SMT, and our study's findings suggested the usefulness of EUS-EG, which can also assess tumor hardness of gastric SMT.

CONCLUSION

EUS-EG might be helpful for the differential diagnosis of gastric SMT, especially to differentiate GIST from other SMT.

Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery

Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) is a newly developed concept for tumor dissection of the gastrointestinal tract that was first investigated for local resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). The first reported version of LECS for GIST has been named 'classical LECS' to distinguish it from other modified LECS procedures, such as inverted LECS, a combination of laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches to neoplasia with a non-exposure technique (CLEAN-NET), and non-exposed endoscopic wall-inversion surgery (NEWS). These modified LECS procedures were developed for dissection of malignant tumors which may seed tumor cells into the abdominal cavity. While these LECS-related procedures might prevent tumor seeding, their application is limited by several factors, such as tumor size, location and technical difficulty. Currently, classical LECS is a safe and useful procedure for gastric submucosal tumors without mucosal defects, independent of tumor location, such as proximity to the esophagogastric junction or pyloric ring. For future applications of LECS-related procedures for other malignant diseases with mucosal lesions such as GIST with mucosal defects and gastric cancer, some improvements in the techniques are needed.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric submucosal tumors, including esophagogastric junction tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recently, the use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric submucosal tumor (gSMT) and the development of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) have enabled either preservation of the stomach or minimization of the extent of partial resection. In the present study, the outcomes following the recent introduction of LECS for gSMT are presented. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LECS for gSMT, including esophagogastric junction (EGJ) SMT.

METHODS

LECS is indicated for lesions that have an intragastric growth pattern, or for which fundusectomy can be avoided despite an extragastric growth pattern. We retrospectively evaluated the outcome of LECS carried out in 25 patients including five EGJ SMT.

RESULTS

Surgery was completed achieving an R0 resection rate of 100% with no postoperative complications. Mean tumor size was 32.3 ± 13.5 mm and mean resected specimen size was 37.6 ± 13.5 mm. Resection margins were tumor-free in all cases, with adequate minimum surgical margins, and precise conclusive diagnosis was achieved with perfect operative specimens. Endoscopic confirmation of the EGJ enabled the extent of resection to be minimized and the stomach to be preserved, avoiding fundusectomy. Although there were significant differences in tumor size and resected specimen size between EGJ SMT and non-EGJ SMT, there were no significant differences in outcomes of the LECS procedure.

CONCLUSION

LECS is feasible and safe for cases with gSMT including lesions adjacent to the EGJ.