ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Minimally invasive transgastric resection of gastric GIST is a feasbile alternative to wedge resection.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
backgroundSurgical resection remains the primary treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) arising from the stomach. Many tumors are amenable to stapled wedge resection (WR); however, large tumors or those arising in anatomically challenging locations may necessitate formal gastrectomy. Transgastric resection (TGR)-tumor excision via gastrotomy-has been proposed as a tissue-sparing alternative to WR. No large series have directly compared minimally invasive TGR and WR. STUDY
designWe performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent minimally invasive GIST resection between 2019 and 2025 at an academic medical center. The primary outcome was R0 resection. Secondary outcomes included recurrence, complication rates, readmission, operative time, and estimated blood loss (EBL). Outcomes were compared using Fisher's Exact testing, independent t-testing, or log-rank testing as appropriate.
resultsAmong 433 gastric resections, 92 involved minimally invasive resection of a gastric GIST: (30 TGR; 62 WR). Demographics and comorbidities and mean tumor size were similar. TGR was used more frequently for surgically high-risk GIST tumors (defined as proximal to the GEJ or the pylorus or > 5 cm by preoperative endoscopy). Operative metrics were comparable with anticipated slightly increased operative time in TGR (125.2 vs. 97.9, p 0.05) Postoperative outcomes were similar, with no difference in complication rates (6.3% vs. 1.6%, p 0.27) and readmission (3.3% vs. 3.1%, p 0.99). We found no difference in R0 resection (96.7% vs. 88.7%, p 0.26).
conclusionMinimally invasive TGR offers a feasible alternative WR for management of gastric GISTs. TGR may offer tissue-sparing resection when WR is technically challenging, and formal gastrectomy might otherwise be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42443676What 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.