Effectiveness of clip-and-snare method using pre-looping technique for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Table 1 Comparison of lesion characteristics in patients who underwent gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection n (%)

	CSM-PLT group	Control group	P value
	(n = 20)	(n = 20)
Location			1.000
Upper third	7 (35)	7 (35)
Middle third	7 (35)	7 (35)
Lower third	6 (30)	6 (30)
Macroscopic type			0.475
0–IIa	8 (40)	7 (35)
0–IIb	2 (10)	0 (0)
0–IIc	10 (50)	13 (65)
Specimen size in mm, median (range)	35.5 (25–74)	34 (23–75)	0.999
Ulceration	1 (5)	1 (5)	1.000
Histologic type			0.783
Adenoma	4 (20)	2 (10)
Tub1	14 (70)	15 (75)
Tub2	2 (10)	2 (10)
Por	0 (0)	1 (5)
Tumor depth			0.655
Mucosal	17 (85)	18 (90)
Submucosal	3 (15)	2 (10)
Experience of ESD, yr			1.000
≤ 3	6 (30)	6 (30)
4–6	10 (50)	10 (50)
≥ 7	4 (20)	4 (20)

Tub1: Well-differentiated adenocarcinoma; Tub2: Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma; Por: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; CSM-PLT: Clip-and-snare method using pre-looping technique; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Table 2 Comparison of clinical outcomes between the two techniques of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

	CSM-PLT group	Control group	P value
	(n = 20)	(n = 20)
Total procedure time in minutes, median (range)	38.5 (8-145)	59.5 (19-132)	0.023
En bloc resection, number of lesion (%)	20 (100)	20 (100)	-
Complications
Intractable bleeding during ESD, number of times, median (range)	0 (0-4)	1 (0-5)	0.086
Perforation during ESD, number of lesion (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	-
Delayed perforation, number of lesion (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	-
Delayed bleeding, number of lesion (%)	0 (0)	2 (10)	0.157
Anesthesia-related complications, number of lesions (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	-

CSM-PLT: Clip-and-snare method using pre-looping technique; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.