OTSC assisted EFTR for the treatment of GIST: 40 cases analysis

Endoscopic full‑thickness resection with clip‑ and snare‑assisted traction for gastric submucosal tumours in the fundus: A single‑centre case series

“…iv) By tightening the nylon rope, mucosal aggregation can promote wound closure without leaving gaps and prevent the leakage of gastrointestinal contents into the abdominal cavity (66,67). There are other methods of defect closure after Eo-EFTR, such as over-the-scope clips (OTSCs), which are suitable for closing larger defects after Eo-EFTR than endoscopic purse-string sutures, but the equipment is expensive and limited to lesions <3 cm, resulting in limitations to their clinical application (68)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73). Omental patches, fibrin glue, endoscopic puncture suture devices, and the overstitch system are also used to repair therapeutic perforations (74)(75)(76)(77).…”

Advances of endoscopic and surgical management in gastrointestinal stromal tumors

“…Another new technique called the clip-with-line traction-assisted preclosure assisted in EFTR was reported in a 47-year-old man with fundal GIST and was beneficial to preventing GIST falling into the abdominal cavity and the development of related complications such as peritonitis ( 135 ). Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) is an applicable device for the assistance of EFTR and verified with 100% excision success rate in treating GISTs with safety and effectiveness, which is especially recommended for a tumor size of <2 cm ( 136 , 137 ). Researches of EFTR techniques are summarized in Table 6 .…”

Clinicopathological Features and Surgical Management of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: State-of-the-Art

“…GIST resection may be performed by open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery (40)(41)(42)(43) but the surgical approach that is most frequently reported in the literature is the laparoscopic one (40)(41)(42)(43). In fact, minimally invasive surgery is associated with better intra-and post-operative outcomes as compared to open surgery in term of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative pain and return to daily activities, with the same oncological results of open surgery (40)(41)(42)(43). However, the open approach still has a rationale, in case of large masses infiltrating adjacent structures, which may be technically difficult to remove by minimally invasive surgery (40)(41)(42)(43).…”

“…In fact, minimally invasive surgery is associated with better intra-and post-operative outcomes as compared to open surgery in term of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative pain and return to daily activities, with the same oncological results of open surgery (40)(41)(42)(43). However, the open approach still has a rationale, in case of large masses infiltrating adjacent structures, which may be technically difficult to remove by minimally invasive surgery (40)(41)(42)(43). On the other hand, the role of the robotic approach in comparison to laparoscopy has not been clarified yet, due to the lack of comparative studies between the two approaches (41).…”