Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery as a minimally invasive treatment for gastric submucosal tumor

Table 1 Characteristics of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for a gastric submucosal tumor

Patient	Age	Gender	Tumor location	Main location of tumor	Operation method	Operating time (min)	Estimated blood loss (mL)	Tumor size (cm)	Histology
1	78	M	M, Less	Extragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	145	20	4.0 × 3.5	GIST (low risk)
2	60	F	U, Gre	Intragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	175	20	1.7 × 1.7	GIST (very low risk)
3	66	F	U, Post	Intragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	85	30	5.5 × 4.5	GIST (high risk)
4	42	M	L, Gre	Mixed	Conventional laparoscopic approach	155	5	3.0 × 2.7	Schwannoma
5	86	F	M, Less	Extragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	190	40	3.5 × 2.5	GIST (low risk)
6	35	F	U, Gre	Extragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	115	5	3.8 × 3.0	GIST (intermediate risk)
7	84	F	U, Gre	Intragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	235	130	4.0 × 3.3	GIST (intermediate risk)
8	78	F	M, Less	Extragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	145	5	4.5 × 4.0	GIST (low risk)
9	61	F	U, Post	Intragastric	LECS	130	5	4.4 × 2.2	GIST (low risk)
10	64	F	U, Post	Intragastric	LECS	250	5	3.1 × 3.0	GIST (low risk)
11	43	F	L, Less	Intragastric	LECS	155	5	2.0 × 1.7	GIST (very low risk)
12	72	M	M, Less	Extragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	165	70	5.0 × 3.5	GIST (low risk)
13	77	M	U, Gre	Mixed	LECS	230	5	3.0 × 1.5	GIST (low risk)
14	63	F	L, Gre	Intragastric	LECS	202	0	3.0 × 2.0	Schwannoma
15	73	M	U, Ant	Intragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	226	0	3.0 × 2.0	GIST (low risk)
16	36	F	M, Less	Mixed	LECS	214	0	4.0 × 2.5	GIST (low risk)
17	82	F	L, Gre	Mixed	LECS	212	10	2.8 × 2.0 × 1.8	GIST (low risk)
18	81	F	U, Post	Extragastric	Conventional laparoscopic approach	130	0	4.5 × 3.0	GIST (low risk)
19	81	F	M, Less	Intragastric	LECS	221	0	3.2 × 3.0	GIST (low risk)

U: Upper third; M: Middle third; L: Lower third; Less: Lesser curvature; Gre: Greater curvature; Ant: Anterior wall; Post: Posterior wall; LECS: Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery; GIST: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Table 2 Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with gastric submucosal tumor who underwent either conventional laparoscopic surgery or laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery

	LECS(n = 8)	Conventional laparoscopic approach (n = 11)	P value
Age, median (range), yr	64 (36-82)	73 (35-86)	0.51
Gender			0.52
Male	1	4
Female	7	7
Tumor location			0.7
Upper third	3	6
Middle third	2	4
Lower third	3	1
Tumor size, median (range), cm	3.1 (2.0-4.4)	4.0 (1.7-5.5)	0.12
Estimated blood loss, median (range), mL	5 (0-10)	20 (0-130)	0.06
Operating time, median (range), min	213 (130-250)	155 (85-235)	0.05

LECS: Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery.

Table 3 Previous clinical reports of laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric submucosal tumor

Ref.	Year	Number of patients	Median tumor size (cm)	Median operating time (min)	Median estimated blood loss (mL)	Conversion to open surgery
Hiki et al[7]	2008	7	4.6	169	7	0
Kawahira et al[14]	2012	16	2.8	172	5	0
Tsujimoto et al[6]	2012	20	3.8	157	3.5	0
Dong et al[15]	2013	6	3.5	83.3	NA	0
Qiu et al[16]	2013	69	2.8	81.6	29.8	0
Hoteya et al[17]	2014	25	NA	156.3	NA	0
Waseda et al[18]	2014	27	3.6	167.5	5	0
Mori et al[19]	2014	12	3.9	146.3	NA	0
Our case	2015	8	3.1	213	5	0

NA: Not available.