Open Access

Comparison of endoscopic resection, laparoscopic resection, and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery in esophageal or gastric subepithelial lesions in a Thai medical school

, , , , ,  and   
Sep 08, 2025

Cite
Download Cover

Surgical approach based on tumor growth pattern

Tumor growth pattern N (%)
ER
  Total 11 (26.2)
  Endophytic 10 (91.0)
  Exophytic 1 (9.0)
LR
  Total 12 (28.6)
  Endophytic 7 (58.3)
  Exophytic 5 (41.7)
LECS
  Total 19 (45.2)
  Endophytic 16 (84.2)
  Exophytic 3 (15.8)

Demographic data of the study population

Variable N (%)/Mean Min–max P
Sex
  Male 19 (45.2)
  Female 23 (54.8)
Age: mean age (years) 61.8 35–85
Tumor size (cm)
  Overall 2.8 0.7–9 0.214
  Endoscopic 2.7 0.7–4.8
  Laparoscopic 3.2 1.7–9
  Combined 2.8 1.3–5.1
Antiplatelet/anticoagulant usage
  Antiplatelet use 4 (9.5)
  Anticoagulant use 1 (2.4)
  None 37 (88.1)

Tumor location by surgical approach

Tumor location ER LR LECS
Esophagus 3
EGJ 6
Fundus 2 4 2
Greater curvature 2 5
Lesser curvature 1 4 4
Antrum 3 3 2
Body 1

Operative techniques used in gastric SEL resection

Surgical approach N (%)
ER
  Total 11 (26.2)
  ESD 5
  Hybrid ESD 1
  STER 2
  ESMR 1
  OTSC with FTRD 1
  EFTR 1
LR
  Total 12 (28.6)
  Wedge resection 8
  Anatomical resection 4
LECS
  Total 19 (45.2)
  LECS 16
  NEWS 1
  CLEAN–NET 2

Clinical outcomes by surgical approach

Outcome ER LR LECS Total P
Success rate 10/11 (90.9%) 11/12 (91.7%) 19/19 (100%) 40/42 (95.2%) 0.438
Complete resection 5/11 (45.5%) 12/12 (100%) 16/19 (84.2%) 33/42 (78.6%) 0.033
Operative time (h) 3.6 2.8 5.1 0.880
Hospital stay (d) 3.9 9.3 6.7 0.877
Complications
  Intraoperative perforation 5/11 (45.5%) 0/12 (0%) 0/19 (0%) 5/42 (11.9%) <0.001
  Leakage 0/11 (0%) 0/12 (0%) 0/19 (0%) 0/42 (0%)
  Delayed bleeding 2/11 (18.2%) 0/12 (0%) 0/19 (0%) 2/42 (4.8%) 0.052
  SSI 0/11 (0%) 1/12 (8.3%) 1/19 (5.3%) 2/42 (4.8%) 0.656
  Other complications 0/11 (0%) 2/12 (12.7%) 1/19 (5.3%) 3/42 (7.1%) 0.289
  Hospital stay (d) 3.9 9.3 6.7 0.877