Comparison between interrupted closure technique and traditional closure technique in endoscopic full-thickness resection for treating gastric subepithelial lesions

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients and resected lesions, n (%)

	Experimental group (n = 44)	Control group (n = 46)	P value
Age [M, (Q1, Q3), years]	56.5 (49.0, 64.5)	58.5 (49.0, 62.0)	0.994
Sex			0.411
Male	21 (47.73)	18 (39.13)
Female	23 (52.27)	28 (60.87)
Maximum lesion diameter [M, (Q1, Q3), mm]	29.5 (20.0, 39.0)	29.5 (20.0, 48.0)	0.474
Lesion location			0.296
Fundus of stomach	18 (40.90)	26 (56.52)
Gastric body	23 (52.27)	18 (39.13)
Antrum of stomach	3 (6.82)	2 (4.35)
Level of origin of lesion			0.072
Not reaching muscularis propria	3 (6.82)	0 (0)
Muscularis propria	41 (93.18)	46 (100)
Growth pattern			0.875
Intraluminal growth	3 (6.82)	3 (6.52)
Extraluminal growth	2 (4.54)	1 (2.17)
Intraluminal and extraluminal growth	39 (88.64)	42 (91.30)
Pathological type			0.634
Stromal tumor	25 (56.82)	33 (71.74)
Leiomyoma	10 (22.73)	6 (13.04)
Ectopia pancreas	2 (4.54)	1 (2.17)
Neurofibroma	3 (6.82)	2 (4.35)
Other	3 (6.82)	4 (8.70)

M: Median.