Closure techniques in exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection: Overview and future perspectives in the endoscopic suturing era

Table 2 Summary of studies reporting post-endoscopic full-thickness resection defect closure by the use of endoclips combined with endoloops

Ref.	Study design	Lesions, n	Mean tumor size (range), cm	Site (cardia/antrum/ body/fundus)	R0	Surgical conversion	Suture technique	Suture technical success	Mean operation time (range), min	Mean suture time (range), min	Major adverse events
Shi et al[17], 2013	R	20	1.47 ± 0.87 (0.40-3.00)	0/1/7/12	20	0	EMCIS	20	-	10 (8-20)	0
Ye et al[18], 2014	R	51	2.40 ± 0.73 (1.30-3.50)	0/1/22/28	50	1 (resection failure)	Clips + endoloop ligature	50	52 (30-125)	-	0
Zhang et al[19], 2014	R	29	1.9 ± 1.1 (0.3–4.2)	0/0/2/27	29	0	EPSS	29	55.7 ± 15.4 (35–95)	-	0
Tang et al[15], 2016	R	12	-	0/1/4/7	-	0	EPSS	12	-	22.42 ± 5.73	0
Shi et al[21], 2017	R	68	2.60 ± 0.50 (2.00-3.50)	0/0/0/68	68	0	EPSS	68	41 (23-118)	13 (9-21)	Delayed bleeding (n = 1)
Hu et al[22], 2017	P	13	1.50 ± 1.00 (0.50-3.50)	0/0/2/11	13	0	GAL	13	43.5 (20-80)	9.4 (3–18)	0
Wu et al[23], 2018	R	25	1.70 ± 1.00 (0.50-4.50)	0/0/7/18	25	0	p-EPSS	25	31 (-)	-	0
Li et al[20], 2019	R	28	1.55 ± 0.4 (-)	0/0/9/19	-	0	EPSS	28	-	-	0

R: Retrospective; EMCIS: Endoloop and metallic clip interrupted-suture; EPSS: Endoscopic purse-string suture; GAL: Grasp-and-loop; p-EPSS: Prepurse-string suture.