Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 21, 2015; 21(43): 12482-12497
Published online Nov 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i43.12482
Published online Nov 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i43.12482
Table 1 Publications of cooperative laparoscopic endoscopic techniques with > 10 patients
Authors | Country | Year | Study type | No. Cases |
Choi et al[20] | Korea | 2000 | Retrospective series | 32 |
Shimizu et al[26] | Japan | 2002 | Retrospective cohort | 11 |
Matthews et al[30] | United States | 2002 | Retrospective cohort | 33 |
Ludwig et al[27] | Germany | 2002 | Prospective case series | 18 |
Bouillot et al[19] | France | 2003 | Multicenter retrospective case series | 561 |
Walsh et al[36] | United States | 2003 | Retrospective series | 13 |
Hindmarsh et al[21] | United Kingdom | 2005 | Retrospective series | 30 |
Schubert et al[28] | Germany | 2005 | Retrospective series | 26 |
Mochizuki et al[24] | Japan | 2006 | Retrospective series | 12 |
Novitsky et al[13] | United States | 2006 | Prospective case series | 50 |
Huguet et al[22] | United States | 2008 | Retrospective series | 33 |
Privette et al[15] | United States | 2008 | Retrospective series | 12 |
Wilhelm et al[16] | Germany | 2008 | Prospective case series | 93 |
Sasaki et al[25] | Japan | 2010 | Prospective case series | 45 |
Kang et al[14] | China | 2013 | Retrospective series | 101 |
Ohata et al[29] | China | 2014 | Retrospective series | 22 |
Qiu et al[6] | China | 2013 | Retrospective series | 69 |
Dong et al[68] | China | 2014 | Retrospective cohort | 18 |
Tsujimoto et al[49] | Japan | 2012 | Retrospective series | 20 |
Kawahira et al[46] | Japan | 2012 | Retrospective cohort | 16 |
Hoteya et al[45] | Japan | 2014 | Retrospective series | 25 |
Cho et al[56] | Korea | 2011 | Prospective case series | 14 |
Hur et al[57] | Korea | 2014 | Prospective case series | 13 |
Mori et al[54] | Japan | 2015 | Prospective case series | 16 |
Shiwaku et al[71] | Japan | 2010 | Prospective case series | 16 |
Table 2 Reported outcome for cooperative laparoscopic endoscopic techniques with > 10 patients
Authors | Year | Technique | Cases | Lesion | Location | Lesion size (mm) | Operative time (min) | Blood loss (mL) | LOS (d) |
Choi et al[20] | 2000 | EAWR | 21 | SMT, leiomyo-sarcoma | Stomach | (20-60) | (80-180) | NR | (6-7) |
LIGS | 10 | ||||||||
Proximal gastrectomy | 1 | ||||||||
Shimizu et al[26] | 2002 | EAWR | 11 | SMT | Stomach | NR | 145 ± 43 | 98 ± 107 | 13.2 ± 3.7 |
Matthews et al[30] | 2002 | EAWR | 15 | GIST | Stomach | 45 (17-82) | 169 (65-300) | 106 (20-200) | 3.8 (2.7) |
EATR | 3 | ||||||||
Needlescopic LIGS (enucleations) | 3 | ||||||||
Ludwig et al[27] | 2002 | EAWR | 18 | SMT, EGC | Stomach | NR | 44.3 (31-67) | NR | 7.5 (3-11) |
LIGS | 8 | 67.1 (49-102) | 10.2 (6-16) | ||||||
Bouillot et al[19] | 2003 | EAWR | 20 | SMT | Stomach | 38 (15-100) | 104 (40-120) | NR | 6 (2-12) |
Walsh et al[36] | 2003 | LIGS | 13 | SMT | Stomach | 38 (15-70) | 186 | NR | 3.8 (3-8) |
Hindmarsh et al[21] | 2005 | EAWR | 30 | SMT | Stomach | 46.6 (12-90) | 73.8 (26-160) | 196 (0-1000) | 5 (1-11) |
Schubert et al[28] | 2005 | EAWR | 16 | SMT, EGC | Stomach | 36 (16-47) | 53 (35-115) | NR | NR |
LIGS | 7 | SMT, EGC | Stomach | 36 (16-47) | 83 (56-130) | ||||
Mochizuki et al[24] | 2006 | EAWR | 12 | SMT | Stomach | 27 (15-48)1 | 100 (65-180)1 | 0 (0-100)1 | 7 (5-12)1 |
Novitsky et al[13] | 2006 | EAWR | 30 | SMT | Stomach | 44 (10-85) | 135 (49-295) | NR | NR |
LIGS | 17 | ||||||||
other | 3 | ||||||||
Huguet et al[22] | 2008 | EAWR | 11 | SMT | Stomach | 39 (5-10.5)1 | NR | NR | 3 (1-40)1 |
EATR | |||||||||
Privette et al[15] | 2008 | EAWR | 5 | SMT | Stomach | 52 (25-60) | 180 (122-262) | 80 (50-100) | 3.4 (2-5) |
Distal gastrectomy | 3 | 55 (35-70) | 322 (256-340) | 167 (100-200) | 8.3 (8-9) | ||||
LIGS | 4 | 46 (25-75) | 236 (202-265) | 100 (50-200) | 3.3 (3-4) | ||||
Wilhelm et al[16] | 2008 | LAER | 1 | SMT | Stomach | 5 | 25 | NR | 2 (2) |
EAWR | 55 | 25 (3-65) | 81.2 (35-202) | 7.68 (4-19) | |||||
EATR | 34 | 26 (5-55) | 114 (40-275) | 7.48 (2-14) | |||||
Sasaki et al[25] | 2010 | EAWR | 35 | SMT | Stomach | 32 (16-74) | 73 (30-150) | 3 (1-80) | 7 (5-14) |
LIGS | 3 | 145 (100-240) | 10 (3-65) | 8 (5-9) | |||||
Single port LIGS | 3 | ||||||||
EATR | 4 | ||||||||
Kang et al[14] | 2013 | EAWR | 97 | SMT | Stomach | (10-82) | 113 ± 36 | 36 ± 18 | 4.5 ± 2.1 |
Ohata et al[29] | 2014 | EAWR | 22 | SMT, EDC | Duodenum | 13.3 ± 11.6 | 133 ± 45 | 16 ± 21.1 | 15.1 ± 7.7 |
Qiu et al[6] | 2013 | LAER | 5 | GIST | Stomach | 28 ± 16 | 81.6 ± 31.8 | 29.8 ± 15.4 | 4.6 |
EAWR | 64 | GIST | Stomach | 86.3 ± 28.5 | 31.4 ± 11.6 | ||||
Dong et al[68] | 2014 | MLIGS | 8 | SMT | Stomach | 27.5 ± 10.7 | 85 ± 25.77 | 20 ± 10.4 | 7.5 ± 1.1 |
EFR | 10 | 16.5 ± 5.9 | 120 ± 34.72 | 48 ± 31.9 | 10.2 ± 9.1 | ||||
Tsujimoto et al[49] | 2012 | LECS | 20 | SMT | Stomach | 37.9 (18-66) | 157.5 (89-316) | 3.5 (0-20) | 11.6 (6-13) |
Kawahira et al[46] | 2012 | LECS | 16 | SMT | Stomach | NR | 172 | NR | 10 |
Hoteya et al[45] | 2014 | LECS | 25 | SMT | Stomach | NR | 156 | NR | 10.5 |
Cho et al[56] | 2011 | LAEFR + Lymphadenectomy | 14 | EGC | Stomach | 26 (12-90)1 | 143 (110-253)1 | 16 (5-30)1 | 6 (4-10)1 |
Hur et al[57] | 2014 | LAEFR + Lymphadenectomy | 9 | EGC | Stomach | 12 (4-32) | 181 (125-240) | NR | 5.9 ± 1.3 (4-8) |
LADG | 4 | ||||||||
Mori et al[54] | 2015 | LAEFR | 16 | GIST | Stomach | 28.3 (8-54) | 271 (100-480) | NR | 12.3 (10-15) |
Shiwaku et al[71] | 2010 | Clean-NET | 16 | EGC | Stomach | NR | 182.1 | 19.4 | NR |
Table 3 Cooperative laparoscopic endoscopic techniques data comparison
Technique name | Lesion | Location | Endoscopy team role | Surgical team role | Closure type | Specimen retrieval | No. papers2 | No. cases2 |
LAER[6,8,9,16] | SMT | Stomach, Duodenum | Endoscopic resection | Monitoring | No closure | Endoscopic | 4 | 10 |
EAWR[6,13-29] | SMT, EGC | Stomach, Duodenum | Tumor localization, exposure | Full thickness resection | Stapler/sutures | Surgical | 17 | 523 |
EATR[16,18,22,25,30,31] | SMT | Stomach | Tumor localization | Mucosal resection, full thickness resection | Stapler/sutures | Surgical | 6 | 70 |
LIGS[13,15,20,25,27,28,30,32,34-38] | SMT, EGC | Stomach | Tumor localization, exposure | Mucosal resection, full thickness resection | Stapler/sutures/endo clips | Endoscopic, surgical | 13 | 101 |
ELIS[39-41] | SMT | Stomach | Tumor localization, exposure, endoscopic guidance | Stapling | Stapler/sutures | Endoscopic, surgical | 3 | 13 |
single port LIGS[25,42,43] | SMT | Stomach | Tumor localization | Mucosal resection, full thickness resection | Open sutures | Surgical | 3 | 13 |
LECS[44-51] | SMT, EDC | Stomach, Duodenum | Submucosal dissection | Seromuscular disection | Stapler | Surgical | 8 | 72 |
Inverted LECS[52] | EGC | Stomach | Submucosal dissection | Seromuscular disection | Stapler | Endoscopic | 1 | 1 |
LAEFR[53,55-57] | SMT, EGC1 | Stomach | Full thickness resection | Full thickness resection | Sutures | Surgical, endoscopic | 5 | 48 |
Clean-NET[58,71] | SMT, EGC | Stomach | Tumor localization, submucosal injection | Seromuscular disection | Stapler | Surgical | 1 | 16 |
NEWS[60,61] | GIST, EGC1 | Stomach | Submucosal dissection | Seromuscular disection | Sutures | Endoscopic | 2 | 7 |
Table 4 Advantages and disadvantages of the various cooperative laparoscopic endoscopic techniques
Technique name | Pros | Cons |
LAER | Minimally invasive approach | Suitable for small lesions with intraluminal expansion |
Monitoring and backup from the laparoscopic team in case of accidental perforation | Requires advanced endoscopy skills | |
EAWR | No requirement of advanced laparoscopic or endoscopic skills | Leaves larger wall defects compared to other methods |
Good entry level for teams starting cooperative techniques | Risk of gastric deformation or stenosis from stapling | |
EATR | Favorable access to lesions ≤ 2 cm, situated high on the posterior wall or lesser curvature without mobilizing the stomach | Requires gastrotomy closure |
May lead to spillage with peritoneal contamination and dissemination | ||
LIGS | Similar to EATR | Risk of gastric deformation or stenosis from stapling |
ELIS | Same as EATR | Same as LIGS |
Difficulty in orienting the stapler under endoscopic view | ||
Single port LIGS | Less invasive than the classic LIGS | Requires previous experience in single port laparoscopy |
The gastrotomy can be closed through the single port incision | More difficult than EATR and LIGS | |
LECS | Combines the advantages of both endoscopy and laparoscopy. No restriction in the size or location of the tumor | Requires advanced endoscopy and laparoscopy skills. More adapted in high volume centers |
Risk of spillage and contamination | ||
Not adapted for early gastric cancer | ||
Inverted LECS | Diminishes the risk of peritoneal cancer dissemination | Not adapted for early gastric cancer |
LAEFR | Minimal invasive endoscopic resection | Requires advanced endoscopy skills in dissection techniques and closure of wide wall defects with macro-clips or suturing devices |
The procedure is facilitated by the laparoscopic view and exposure | ||
Clean-NET | Diminishes the risk of peritoneal dissemination of gastric cancer | Limited literature |
Requires special training | ||
Risk of mucosal tear with cancer cell dissemination | ||
NEWS | Diminishes the risk of peritoneal dissemination of early gastric cancer | Limited literature. Requires special training |
- Citation: Ntourakis D, Mavrogenis G. Cooperative laparoscopic endoscopic and hybrid laparoscopic surgery for upper gastrointestinal tumors: Current status. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(43): 12482-12497
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i43/12482.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i43.12482