Feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic purse-string suture-assisted closure for mucosal defects induced by endoscopic manipulations

Table 3 Baseline characteristics of the cases in this study

Patients detail	Total (n = 180)	P-EPSS (n = 63)	C-EPSS (n = 117)	P value
Age (yr), mean (range)	60 (38-78)	62 (42-76)	60 (38-78)	0.19
Sex, n (%)				0.75
Female	112 (62)	38 (60)	74 (63)
Male	68 (38)	25 (40)	43 (37)
Manipulation, n (%)				0.40
EFTR	36 (20)	15 (24)	21 (18)
ESE	32 (18)	13 (21)	19 (16)
ESD	112 (62)	35 (55)	77 (66)
Location, n(%)				0.10
Stomach
Fundus	79 (44)	35 (56)	44 (38)
Body	45 (25)	11 (17)	34 (29)
Antrum	22 (12)	8 (13)	14 (12)
Colon and rectum	34 (19)	9 (14)	25 (21)
Defect size (cm), mean ± SD	2.89 ± 1.46	3.6 ± 1.13	2.5 ± 0.68	0.021
Morphology, n(%)				0.011
Deep SMT	76 (42)	36 (57)	40 (34)
Superficial SMT	55 (31)	15 (24)	40 (34)
Precancerous lesions	49 (27)	12 (19)	37 (32)

¹Statistically significant.

SD: Standard deviation; SMT: Submucosal tumor; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; ESE: Endoscopic submucosal excavation; EFTR: Endoscopic full-thickness resection; P-EPSS: Endoscopic pre-purse-string suture; C-EPSS: Conventional endoscopic purse-string suture.