A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection

Objective. To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic closure and laparoscopic repair for gastric wall defection. Method. The clinical data of 120 patients with submucosal tumours enrolled at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Qiao Qiao, Huiming Tu, Bojian Fei, Kebin Xu, Fan Yang, Jie Li, Qizhong Gao
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-01-01
Series:Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9963126
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849686516261978112
author Qiao Qiao
Huiming Tu
Bojian Fei
Kebin Xu
Fan Yang
Jie Li
Qizhong Gao
author_facet Qiao Qiao
Huiming Tu
Bojian Fei
Kebin Xu
Fan Yang
Jie Li
Qizhong Gao
author_sort Qiao Qiao
collection DOAJ
description Objective. To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic closure and laparoscopic repair for gastric wall defection. Method. The clinical data of 120 patients with submucosal tumours enrolled at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery they underwent: an endoscopic closure group (n=60) and a laparoscopic repair group (n=60). The clinical characteristics, perioperative complications, and postoperative follow-up results of the two groups were analysed. Results. The surgery time in the endoscopic closure group was 56.20±11.25 minutes, which was significantly lower compared with that in the laparoscopic repair group (159.35±23.18 minutes; P<0.001). In addition, the postoperative stay in the endoscopic closure group was shorter than that in the laparoscopic repair group, and the intraoperative bleeding volume and incidence of enteral nutrition initiation after surgery were significantly lower. Medical expenses were also significantly lower in the endoscopic closure group than in the laparoscopic repair group (P<0.001). Only one patient developed a postoperative fever in the endoscopic closure group; three patients developed a postoperative fever and one patient had postoperative bleeding in the laparoscopic repair group. However, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding the incidence of R0 resection, postoperative fever, postoperative bleeding, and closure failure (all P>0.05). There were no local recurrences, distant metastases, or deaths in either of the groups during the two-year follow-up period. Conclusion. Non-laparoscopic-assisted surgery may be quicker, safer, and more effective for gastric wall defection.
format Article
id doaj-art-c547f149d12d49e982ba6d138f62f5e4
institution DOAJ
issn 1687-630X
language English
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Gastroenterology Research and Practice
spelling doaj-art-c547f149d12d49e982ba6d138f62f5e42025-08-20T03:22:41ZengWileyGastroenterology Research and Practice1687-630X2022-01-01202210.1155/2022/9963126A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall DefectionQiao Qiao0Huiming Tu1Bojian Fei2Kebin Xu3Fan Yang4Jie Li5Qizhong Gao6Department of GastroenterologyDepartment of GastroenterologyDepartment of Laparoscopic SurgeryDepartment of GastroenterologyDepartment of GastroenterologyDepartment of GastroenterologyDepartment of Laparoscopic SurgeryObjective. To compare the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic closure and laparoscopic repair for gastric wall defection. Method. The clinical data of 120 patients with submucosal tumours enrolled at our hospital between January 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery they underwent: an endoscopic closure group (n=60) and a laparoscopic repair group (n=60). The clinical characteristics, perioperative complications, and postoperative follow-up results of the two groups were analysed. Results. The surgery time in the endoscopic closure group was 56.20±11.25 minutes, which was significantly lower compared with that in the laparoscopic repair group (159.35±23.18 minutes; P<0.001). In addition, the postoperative stay in the endoscopic closure group was shorter than that in the laparoscopic repair group, and the intraoperative bleeding volume and incidence of enteral nutrition initiation after surgery were significantly lower. Medical expenses were also significantly lower in the endoscopic closure group than in the laparoscopic repair group (P<0.001). Only one patient developed a postoperative fever in the endoscopic closure group; three patients developed a postoperative fever and one patient had postoperative bleeding in the laparoscopic repair group. However, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding the incidence of R0 resection, postoperative fever, postoperative bleeding, and closure failure (all P>0.05). There were no local recurrences, distant metastases, or deaths in either of the groups during the two-year follow-up period. Conclusion. Non-laparoscopic-assisted surgery may be quicker, safer, and more effective for gastric wall defection.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9963126
spellingShingle Qiao Qiao
Huiming Tu
Bojian Fei
Kebin Xu
Fan Yang
Jie Li
Qizhong Gao
A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
title A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection
title_full A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection
title_fullStr A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection
title_short A Comparison of Endoscopic Closure and Laparoscopic Repair for Gastric Wall Defection
title_sort comparison of endoscopic closure and laparoscopic repair for gastric wall defection
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9963126
work_keys_str_mv AT qiaoqiao acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT huimingtu acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT bojianfei acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT kebinxu acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT fanyang acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT jieli acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT qizhonggao acomparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT qiaoqiao comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT huimingtu comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT bojianfei comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT kebinxu comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT fanyang comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT jieli comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection
AT qizhonggao comparisonofendoscopicclosureandlaparoscopicrepairforgastricwalldefection