Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastroenterol. May 21, 2026; 32(19): 112955
Published online May 21, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v32.i19.112955
Published online May 21, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v32.i19.112955
Table 3 Comparison of closure performance metrics between the two groups, n (%)
| Procedural characteristics | Control group (n = 129) | Experimental group (n = 85) | χ2/t/Z | P value |
| Closure time, minutes, mean ± SD | 14.3 ± 4.5 | 13.0 ± 4.5 | t = 2.030 | 0.044 |
| Number of clips, mean ± SD | 7.2 ± 3.3 | 6.4 ± 2.9 | t = 1.788 | 0.075 |
| Procedure-ending leak test | χ2 = 2.005 | 0.157 | ||
| Positive | 3 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Negative | 126 (97.7) | 85 (100.0) | ||
| Rescue closure | χ2 = 1.330 | 0.249 | ||
| Yes | 2 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| No | 127 (98.4) | 85 (100.0) | ||
| Pneumoperitoneum | χ2 = 6.833 | 0.033 | ||
| Yes | 18 (14.0) | 4 (4.7) | ||
| No | 46 (35.7) | 42 (49.4) | ||
| Not examined | 65 (50.4) | 39 (45.9) |
- Citation: Li X, Zhang RY, Wen XD, Li XQ, Liu WH. Traction-preclosure-assisted vs conventional endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric subepithelial tumors: Safety, efficacy in a retrospective cohort (with video). World J Gastroenterol 2026; 32(19): 112955
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v32/i19/112955.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v32.i19.112955