Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Nov 10, 2015; 7(16): 1208-1215
Published online Nov 10, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i16.1208
Published online Nov 10, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i16.1208
Table 1 Representative publications reporting endoscopic full-thickness resection for upper gastrointestinal tumors
Table 2 Comparison of each procedure
Instruments | Indication forEGC | Retrieval route | Intentional gastricperforation | Advantage | Limitation | |
EFTR | Endoscopy only | No | Transroral | Required | Simple methods using intraluminal endoscopy only | Risk of contamination, endoscopic skills required |
Classical LECS | Endoscopy = laparoscopy | No | Transabdominal | Required | Accurate to determine the resection line, laparoscopic assistance | Risk of contamination Risk of contact to tumor surface |
Inverted LECS | Endoscopy = laparoscopy | Indefinite | Transoral | Required | Accurate to determine the resection line, laparoscopic assistance | Risk of contact to cancer surface, tumor size |
CLEAN-NET | Endoscopy < laparoscopy | Yes | Transabdominal | Not required | No transluminal communication | Excessive resection of the mucosa, difficult to determine the resection line |
NEWS | Endoscopy = laparoscopy | Yes | Transoral | Not required | Accurate to determine the resection line, laparoscopic assistance, no transluminal communication | Tumor size, experience required, time-consuming |
- Citation: Maehata T, Goto O, Takeuchi H, Kitagawa Y, Yahagi N. Cutting edge of endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric tumor. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7(16): 1208-1215
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v7/i16/1208.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i16.1208