Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jul 27, 2021; 13(7): 645-654
Published online Jul 27, 2021. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v13.i7.645
Table 1 Summary of studies reporting post-endoscopic full-thickness resection defect closure by the use of endoclips
Ref.Study designLesions, nMean tumor size (range), cmSite (cardia/antrum/ body/fundus)R0Surgical conversionSuture techniqueSuture technical successMean operation time (range), minMean suture time (range), minMajor adverse events
Zhou et al[4], 2011R262.8 ± 1.3 (1.2-4.5)0/0/14/12260Clips +/- omental- patch26105 (60-145)-0
Huang et al[7], 2014R352.8 (2.0-4.5)0/0/21/14350Clips +/- omental- patch3590 (60-155)-0
Dong et al[12], 2014R101.65 ± 0.59 (0.80-2.50)1/1/1/7100Clips10120 (60-180)-Peritonitis and abdominal abscess (n = 1)
Feng et al[8], 2014R481.59 ± 1.01 (0.50-4.80)0/1/7/40480Clips4859.7 (30-270)-0
Wu et al[9], 2015R503.40 ± 0.83 (2.50-5.00)0/13/23/14500Clips +/- omental- patch5085 (55-155)-0
Tang et al[15], 2016R6-0/1/2/3-0CFCM6-14.83 ± 1.94 (-)0
Lu et al[10], 2016R622.23 ± 1.80 (0.60-6.00)0/0/29/33610Clips62NA (n = 30): 85 (40-180); TWC (n = 21): 45 (25-90); LA (n = 11): 40 (30-75)-0
Tan et al[13], 2017R321.54 ± 0.66 (-)0/0/7/25-1Clips6269.1 ± 27.0 (-)6.3 ± 1.6 (-)Delayed bleeding (n = 1)
Abe et al[11], 2018R14--143Clips11--0
Zhao et al[14], 2019R851.60 ± 0.88 (-)6/4/20/55810Clips85--Abdominal infection (n = 1)
Table 2 Summary of studies reporting post-endoscopic full-thickness resection defect closure by the use of endoclips combined with endoloops
Ref.Study designLesions, nMean tumor size (range), cmSite (cardia/antrum/ body/fundus)R0Surgical conversionSuture techniqueSuture technical success Mean operation time (range), minMean suture time (range), minMajor adverse events
Shi et al[17], 2013R201.47 ± 0.87 (0.40-3.00)0/1/7/12200EMCIS20-10 (8-20)0
Ye et al[18], 2014R512.40 ± 0.73 (1.30-3.50)0/1/22/28501 (resection failure)Clips + endoloop ligature5052 (30-125)-0
Zhang et al[19], 2014R291.9 ± 1.1 (0.3–4.2)0/0/2/27290EPSS2955.7 ± 15.4 (35–95)-0
Tang et al[15], 2016R12-0/1/4/7-0EPSS12-22.42 ± 5.730
Shi et al[21], 2017R682.60 ± 0.50 (2.00-3.50)0/0/0/68680EPSS6841 (23-118)13 (9-21)Delayed bleeding (n = 1)
Hu et al[22], 2017P131.50 ± 1.00 (0.50-3.50)0/0/2/11130GAL1343.5 (20-80)9.4 (3–18)0
Wu et al[23], 2018R251.70 ± 1.00 (0.50-4.50)0/0/7/18250p-EPSS2531 (-)-0
Li et al[20], 2019R281.55 ± 0.4 (-)0/0/9/19-0EPSS28--0
Table 3 Summary of studies reporting post-endoscopic full-thickness resection defect closure by the use of over-the-scope clips
Ref.Study designLesions, nMean tumor size (range), cmSite (cardia/antrum/ body/fundus)R0Surgical conversionSuture techniqueSuture technical success Mean operation time (range), minMean suture time (range), minMajor adverse events
Guo et al[25], 2015R231.21 ± 0.47 (0.6-2.0)0/3/9/11230OTSC2340.5 ± 25.8 (16–104)4.9 ± 2.2 (2–12)0
Wang et al[26], 2019CS21.1 (1-1.2)0/0/1/120OTSC2108.5 (48-121)43 (16-70)0
Hu et al[27], 2020R202.4 ± 0.26 (-)0/0/0/20200OTSC +/- clips20130.6 ± 51.9 (-)-0
Table 4 Summary of studies reporting post-endoscopic full-thickness resection defect closure by the use of endoscopic suturing systems
Ref.Study designLesions, nMean tumor size (range), cmSite (cardia/antrum/ body/fundus)R0Surgical conversionSuture techniqueSuture technical success Mean operation time (range), minMean suture time (range), minMajor adverse events
Andalib et al[35], 2018CS7---0ESS7--0
Xu et al[36], 2018CR12.40/0/0/110ESS1--0
Granata et al[37], 2018CR1-0/0/1/0-0ESS (3 running sutures)1--0
Dedania et al[38], 2018CR11.50/0/1/0.0ESS (2 running sutures)1--0
Inayat et al[40], 2019CS32.35 (1.85-3.20)2/0/0/1-0Clips omental-patch + ESS3--0
Kerdsirichairat et al[41], 2019CR1-1/0/0/010Clips omental-patch + ESS1--0
Sachdev et al[42], 2020CS23.15 (2.8-3.5)2/0/0/0-0Clips omental-patch + ESS2--0
Modayil et al[39], 2020CR12.50/0/0/110ESS (1 running suture)1--0