ArticleAsian biomedicine : research, reviews and news2025
Comparison of endoscopic resection, laparoscopic resection, and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery in esophageal or gastric subepithelial lesions in a Thai medical school.
Article in Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal and gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) are increasingly identified in routine endoscopic evaluations, necessitating optimal resection strategies. Minimally invasive techniques, including endoscopic resection (ER), laparoscopic resection (LR), and laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), have distinct advantages. The present study compares the outcomes of these techniques. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of ER, LR, and LECS in the management of esophageal or gastric SELs at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on patients undergoing ER, LR, or LECS for esophageal and gastric SELs from January 2012 to August 2022. The primary outcome was the complete resection rate. Secondary outcomes included success rates, complications, and length of hospital stay. Statistical significance was set at Results: Among 42 patients, 11 (26.2%) underwent ER, 12 (28.6%) underwent LR, and 19 (45.2%) underwent LECS. Complete resection was significantly higher in LR (100%) and LECS (84.2%) than ER (45.5%) ( Conclusion: While all techniques had high success rates, ER had the lowest complete resection rate and the highest bleeding risk. LR ensured complete resection but required longer hospitalization. LECS provided a balance between oncologic efficacy and safety. Surgical planning should be tailored based on tumor characteristics and surgical expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.