Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection Versus Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparative Study.

Authors

Yoshiaki Ando, Noriya Uedo, Kenichiro Furukawa, Atsushi Sawada, Kingo Hirasawa, Atsuko Ohki, Hirohisa Takeuchi, Nobutsugu Abe, Yoshihiro Kuwabara, Kenji Kishimoto, Isao Myashiro, Hiroyuki Ono

Published in

Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. Volume 38. Issue 7. Pages e70225.

Abstract

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) are minimally invasive treatments for gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). Because comparative data of both methods are lacking, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between EFTR and LECS for gastric SMT.
This multicenter study included patients who underwent EFTR or LECS for gastric SMT in four Japanese institutions. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed with a caliper width of 0.2. Covariates included age; sex; body mass index; history of abdominal surgery, cardiovascular disease, or cerebrovascular disease; comorbidities; smoking and drinking habits; antiplatelet and anticoagulant intake; along with tumor location, type, and size.
We enrolled 38 patients treated with EFTR and 59, with LECS. After PSM, 21 patients were selected. The histological R0 resection rate was comparable between EFTR and LECS before (95% vs. 100%) and after (91% vs. 100%) PSM. In the EFTR group, median operation time was shorter (93 min vs. 161 min, p < 0.001), median numbers of attending doctors were fewer (5 vs. 3, p < 0.001), with procedure (¥305,330 vs. ¥434,700, p = 0.017) and total hospitalization costs (¥676,400 vs. ¥861,420) lower than those in the LECS group after PSM. Adverse event rates were low (5% vs. 14%, p = 0.606) in both groups.
EFTR and LECS provide efficacious oncological outcomes for patients with small (≤ 3 cm) intraluminal type gastric SMT. EFTR demonstrated favorable operative efficiency and economic outcomes, suggesting it may be a potentially cost-effective alternative.

PMID:
42412064
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 07 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.