Recent Advances in Endoscopic Treatment Techniques for Subepithelial Lesions

Seung Han Kim

doi:10.7704/kjhugr.2025.0044

Korean J Helicobacter Up Gastrointest Res > Volume 25(3); 2025 > Article

Kim: Recent Advances in Endoscopic Treatment Techniques for Subepithelial Lesions

Review

The Korean Journal of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research 2025;25(3):216-223.

Published online: September 1, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7704/kjhugr.2025.0044

Recent Advances in Endoscopic Treatment Techniques for Subepithelial Lesions

Seung Han Kim

Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author Seung Han Kim, MD, PhD Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 148 Gurodong-ro, Guro-gu, Seoul 08308, Korea E-mail: kimseunghan09@gmail.com

Received July 3, 2025; Revised August 9, 2025; Accepted August 11, 2025;

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Recent advancements in endoscopic techniques have resulted in greater adoption of minimally invasive methods for diagnosing and treating gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs), significantly reducing the reliance on traditional surgery. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the endoscopic removal of gastric SELs is safe and effective, especially for tumors with low malignant potential. Ongoing improvements in endoscopic tools and procedural innovations continue to enhance therapeutic outcomes and reduce complication rates. This review explores the current endoscopic treatments for gastric submucosal tumors, emphasizing recent technological advancements.

Key words: Endoscopic surgical procedures; Stomach neoplasms; Minimally invasive surgical procedures

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is the primary treatment for gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs). However, as endoscopic techniques have advanced, endoscopic resection has emerged as a practical alternative to traditional surgical methods. Recently, endoscopic resection techniques have been employed to treat SELs, including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), endoscopic band ligation (EBL), and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS).

Recent studies have examined the safety and efficacy of endoscopic treatments for SELs [1,2]. These methods have proven safe and effective in managing SELs, including gastric SELs arising from the muscular propria (MP) layer. However, consensus has not yet been reached regarding the optimal follow-up strategy or ideal tumor size threshold for endoscopic resection.

Endoscopic resection offers benefits such as shorter procedure times and hospital stays, and less blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery. It has achieved similar success and complication rates. Consequently, endoscopic resection is broadly regarded as a valid alternative treatment for gastric SELs [3-5]. This review summarizes the recent progress in endoscopic therapies for gastric SELs (Table 1).

ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT OF GASTRIC SELs

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

ESD was originally used for the resection of early gastrointestinal cancers and has recently been used for SELs (Fig. 1). An et al. [6] analyzed data from 168 patients who underwent ESDs for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) located in the MP layer. The en bloc resection rate was 100%, with no recurrence or metastases during 25 months. Most lesions were observed in the gastric fundus. The median tumor size was 1.5 cm, ranging from 0.5 to 6.0 cm, with a consistent shape in 154 patients. The average procedure duration was 46.5 min (range 33–181 min). Gastrointestinal wall defects occurred in 71 patients (42.3%), and delayed hemorrhage occurred in two (1.2%) treated with clips. Of these, 117 were at very low risk, 37 were at low risk, and 14 were at mild risk. No recurrence or metastases occurred during 6–67 months of follow-up. Tumor shape was an independent risk factor for wall defects. In long-term follow-up data (mean follow-up 36.15±12.92 months), 60 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic resections (including 25 ESDs) [7], with an average procedure duration of 43.97 min. Two patients had approximately 200 mL of bleeding, which was successfully controlled using hemostatic forceps. Perforations after ESDs occurred in four cases (4/25), sized 2–11 mm, and were treated with endoscopic clips without surgery. One patient experienced esophageal mucosal injury during the removal of a large tumor. Average hospital stay was 6.50±3.06 days (range 3–21 days). Among the patients, 44 (73.3%) had very low risk, 10 (16.7%) had low risk, 5 (8.3%) had moderate risk, and 1 (1.7%) had high risk. During follow-up, one patient had a recurrence and underwent surgery after 32 months; no other patients showed recurrence or metastases. However, considering the malignant potential of GISTs, ESD may lead to tumor recurrence or intraperitoneal transplantation due to gastric wall defects, tumor spread, or tumor rupture [8,9]. To avoid complications such as recurrence, it is crucial to accurately identify the lesion location using endoscopic ultrasonography, classify the tumor type, and choose an appropriate procedure based on the lesion’s risk.

Endoscopic band ligation

EBL has been traditionally used to treat esophageal varices and gastric submucosal tumors (Fig. 2). The risk of complications can be reduced by endoscopic resection with EBL, particularly when an electrosurgical unit is involved. Since most GISTs originate in the MP layer, endoscopic resection with electosurgical unit may increase the risk of serious complications such as bleeding and rupture. Patients initially treated with EBL for small GISTs (or ≤1.5 cm in size) were analyzed [10]. Endoscopic ligation was conducted in 29 patients, achieving a 96% complete resection rate. There were no complications such as perforation, although one patient experienced bleeding. The follow-up period was 32 months, and no recurrence was noted.

Endoscopic enucleation assisted by EBL was used to remove GISTs located in the MP in 21 patients [11]. The authors utilized endoloop ligation or modified elastic bands for the procedure. The average treatment duration was 48 min. There were no complications, such as perforations, significant bleeding, or peritonitis, following the procedure. All tumors were entirely removed, and no recurrence was observed during the 21-month follow-up period.

EBL is generally indicated, especially in lesions where access and suctioning are feasible. However, the disadvantages of endoscopic resection with EBL include the limited size of resectable GISTs owing to the cap used and the inability to perform precise post-resection histological evaluations. However, small GISTs tend to have a lower likelihood of malignancy. Therefore, EBL resection is a viable option, especially when considering the patient’s age and overall health.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection

EFTR was initially developed for treating rectal and duodenal carcinoid tumors (Fig. 3) [12]. EFTR was devised to overcome the drawbacks of ESD for R0 resection and removal of MP lesions. Using this advanced technique, a dependable endoscopic suture device is crucial for suturing in open areas. The OverStitch system, a commercially available full-thickness suture endoscope, employs surgical technology sutures [13]. Another device is the over-the-scope clip system (OTSC^®; Ovesco Endoscopy AG), an endoscopic clip device used for tissue closure [14,15]. A full-thickness resection device (FTRD) utilizing an OTSC system has recently been developed as a more advanced mechanism for unexposed EFTRs [16].

Zhou et al. [5] documented 26 cases of EFTR in patients with gastric GISTs. All cases involved R0 resections, with an average tumor size of 28 mm (range, 12–45 mm). In all cases, an open full-thickness layer after resection was effectively sealed with an endoscopic clip. Guo et al. [17] documented 23 cases of EFTRs that were followed by endoscopic sutures using OTSCs. EFTR procedures were successful in all cases, with no delayed perforation during the 3-month follow-up. Tumor sizes averaged 12.1±4.7 mm, ranging from 6 to 20 mm. Histological reports showed one high-risk GIST (4%), 18 very low-risk GISTs (78%), and four leiomyomas (17%). Local peritonitis occurred in two cases (9%). Ye et al. [18] studied EFTR’s safety and efficacy using clips and endoloops after removing SELs from the MP layer in 51 patients. EFTR was successfully performed in 98% of the patients, with an average procedure time of approximately 52 min. In a study of 62 patients, Lu et al. [19] compared the outcomes of three different EFTR methods. The endoscopic procedure duration was significantly reduced when using thread-with-clip and loop-assisted techniques compared with the traditional method. The mean lesion size was approximately 2 cm. Effective traction using these methods contributed to the successful execution of the EFTR. However, because these procedures require technical skill from endoscopists, they may be challenging to perform easily from a technical perspective.

Shichijo et al. [20] conducted a multicenter phase II study that demonstrated that EFTR is effective and safe for gastric submucosal tumors measuring 11–30 mm. In 46 patients, the complete ER rate was 100% with no need for surgical conversion. Most lesions were GISTs, and the number of adverse events was minimal. These findings suggest that EFTR is a promising therapeutic option.

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection

STER was initially used to treat SELs of the esophagus and gastric cardia (Fig. 4) [21-24]. Compared to other endoscopic resection techniques, STER provides several advantages: it maintains mucosal integrity, accelerates wound healing, and reduces the risk of complications such as infection [25-27]. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of STER for treating gastric SELs. Tan et al. [27] compared STER with EFTR in their study. Both demonstrated similar safety and efficacy; however, EFTR required more endoscopic clips to close the stomach wall defect. Wang et al. [28] performed a one-tunnel STER to remove multiple SELs in 12 patients. The average procedure took 92.1±40.8 min, during which 30 SELs were fully resected. All lesions were successfully resected, with no recurrence observed over an average follow-up of 24.9±15.3 months. Nevertheless, STER has certain limitations, including difficulty in accessing lesions located in the upper great curvature and fundus and challenges associated with removing tumors exceeding the esophageal diameter [23,27].

Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery

The concept of LECS originated in 2008 after the development of ESD. This approach involves close teamwork between endoscopists and surgeons in the same operating room to treat a single patient. In Japan, from October 2007 to December 2011, 126 patients with gastric SELs were treated with LECS at eight different institutions [29]. The average operation time for LECS was 190.2 min (standard deviation [SD] 66.8 min), with an estimated blood loss of 15.1 mL (SD 38.6 mL). LECS has demonstrated safety and practicality in removing gastric SELs, characterized by a reasonable duration, minimal bleeding, and an acceptable rate of complications [30,31]. Classical LECS involves creating an iatrogenic perforation during the procedure, which increases the risk of tumor cell seeding in the abdominal cavity. To address this issue, several non-exposure techniques have been developed as alternatives to LECS. These include methods such as the combination of laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches for neoplasia with a non-exposure technique (CLEAN-NET), non-exposure endoscopic wall inversion surgery (NEWS), and non-exposure simple suturing EFTR (NESS-EFTR)/closed LECS [32-35]. These techniques prevent accidental perforation of the gastric wall, making them ideal for submucosal tumors without mucosal ulceration. Closed LECS, a new variation of LECS, involves inverting the tissue and performing seromuscular dissection without exposing the gastric lumen. These methods are effective for tumors up to 3 cm in size and offer similar oncological safety with a lower risk of contamination, making them safer options than traditional LECS for certain lesions.

EFFICACY OF ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION FOR GASTRIC SELs

Current guidelines suggest laparoscopic resection for gastric GISTs, with a long-term recurrence rate of 0%–8% (follow-up, 35–75 months) [36-43]. However, laparoscopic resection carries the risk of injuring the pseudocapsule, and using a laparoscopic port for tumor removal raises the risk of peritoneal seeding. Surgery becomes more challenging when the GIST is situated in the prepyloric area, esophagogastric junction, or cardia of the stomach [44].

Joo et al. [4] assessed the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic resection for GISTs, and compared their findings with those of surgical resection outcomes. The authors studied 130 patients with upper gastrointestinal lesions and tracked their outcomes. Tumor sizes were smaller in the endoscopic group (2.3 cm vs. 5.1 cm, p<0.001). The procedure duration and length of hospital stay were shorter in the endoscopic group. The R0 resection rate was higher in surgical cases (25.6% vs. 85.0%, p=0.001). Despite this, recurrence rates over 45.5 months were similar (2.2% vs. 5.0%, p=0.586). Shen et al. [45] compared endoscopic and surgical resection in 54 patients with gastric GISTs (<2 cm). Patients who underwent endoscopic resection had shorter hospital stays than those who underwent surgery (p<0.001). Blood loss, nasogastric tube insertion time, and procedure durations were significantly higher in the surgery group (p<0.001). Over 34.5 months of follow-up, one high-risk patient in each group experienced recurrence. A meta-analysis of five studies compared endoscopic and surgical resection for gastric GISTs [46]. The average tumor size ranged from 1.1 cm to 3.8 cm, with the endoscopic resection group having smaller mean sizes than the surgical resection group (p=0.03). There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, or recurrence rates. Nonetheless, endoscopic resection procedures took significantly less time than surgical resections (p<0.001).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION

Future advancements in endoscopic resection are expected across all major techniques. For ESD, improvements in traction-assisted methods, hybrid knives, and AI-guided delineation of the submucosal planes may enhance the efficiency and lower perforation risks. EBL is likely to evolve with more precise ligation devices and advanced imaging tools to better assess the depth and completeness of resection in small SELs. STER may benefit from improved tunneling instruments and real-time navigation systems, potentially expanding its use beyond the esophagus and cardia of the stomach. In EFTR, ongoing refinement of endoscopic suturing and full-thickness closure devices is crucial for safety, particularly for lesions near critical structures. For LECS, particularly non-exposure variants like NEWS and CLEAN-NET, hybrid techniques combining robotic assistance and endoluminal access have been explored to reduce contamination risks while enabling the resection of larger or more complex lesions. Overall, these innovations aim to improve procedural outcomes, expand indications, and increase patient safety in the minimally invasive management of gastrointestinal SELs.

In addition, a reliable endoscopic suturing device is crucial for safe removal of SELs from the MP layer using procedures such as EFTR. Significant advances in endoscopic suturing technology could greatly enhance techniques for resecting SELs. Currently, commercial endoscopic tools include only the overstitch system that requires a 2-channel endoscope and is unsuitable for general endoscopy. Another available device is the OTSC, a clip-type device compatible with standard 1-channel endoscopes. The OTSC system can be mounted at the end of the endoscope and used for various applications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, perforations, fistulas, and anastomotic leakage [47,48]. It can also be used for endoscopic closure of an artificial perforation following endoscopic procedures [49]. The OTSC system is designed to offer more advanced endoscopic closure than traditional clips. However, its effectiveness could be limited by the size of the gastrointestinal wall defect, and its high cost remains a concern [50]. Goto et al. [51] presented an endoscopic suture method. This technique employs a non-absorbable suture threaded through a curved needle, using a through-the-scope needle fixation device. It mimics the hand-suturing method performed by surgeons. This method is suitable for the continuous linear suturing of gastrointestinal mucosal defects. Successful implementation depends on the skills of experienced endoscopists and assistants. Recently, Mori et al. [52] introduced a double-armed bar suturing system (DBSS; Zeon Medical Co.) designed for a full-thickness suture mechanism. It can be used with a standard 1-channel endoscope and allows sealing of the opened gastric wall with a strength comparable to that of a hand-sewn stitch. The DBSS can easily be attached to the end of a regular endoscope as a hood. Several endoscopic suturing devices have been developed for this purpose. Although various endoscopic devices, such as OverStitch, OTSC, FTRD, and DBSS, have shown promising results in Western studies, their clinical use in Korea remains limited. Currently, the OTSC is the only widely available and approved full-thickness closure system in Korea. The OverStitch and FTRD systems have not yet received domestic regulatory approval or are not routinely accessible owing to their high costs or lack of insurance coverage. Therefore, clinicians in Korea often rely on alternative closure methods, including endoloops, clips, and laparoscopic assistance when performing EFTR or complex resections.

CONCLUSION

Recent progress in understanding the behavior of SELs and improvements in endoscopic tools have enabled precise and informative diagnoses. Furthermore, advancements in endoscopic techniques have supported invasive surgical procedures, enabling efficient management of SELs. As some SELs carry a potential risk of malignancy, minimally invasive endoscopic resection may be preferable over ongoing surveillance. Although the endoscopic approach to SELs is still debated, the ongoing development of devices and techniques suggests that more sophisticated and effective treatments will be available in the near future. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for managing SELs, minimizing complications, and enhancing outcomes. With more research and long-term data, the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment for SELs will become increasingly evident.

Notes

Availability of Data and Material

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The author has no financial conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

None

Acknowledgements

None

Fig. 1.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Marking (A), injection (B), mucosal injection (C), dissection (D), continued dissection (E), and complete resection (F).

Fig. 2.

Endoscopic band ligation. Subepithelial tumor originating from the muscularis propria layer (A), band ligation (B), dissection (C), continued dissection (D), and complete resection (E).

Fig. 3.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection. Marking, injection, and circumferential incision (A), incision (B), specimen resected with snare (C), and closure using endoscopic clips (D).

Fig. 4.

Endoscopic submucosal tunneling resection. Injection (A), creation of the submucosal tunnel (B), continued tunneling (C), myotomy (D), removal with endoscopic forceps (E).

Table 1.

Comparison of endoscopic techniques for gastric subepithelial lesions

Technique	Indications	Advantages	Limitations	Procedure time
ESD	SELs in muscularis propria, esp. small to moderate-sized GISTs	High en bloc resection rate (92%–100%)	High risk of gastric wall defect	43.97±13.0 minutes
		Suitable for small lesions	Perforation risk
		Suitable for small lesions	Technical difficulty
EBL	Small gastric SELs, especially low-risk GISTs	Simple technique	Limited to small tumors	48 minutes (SD not reported)
		Low risk of perforation	Inaccurate histological margin evaluation
		Short procedure time	Cap size limits use
EFTR	GISTs or SELs from muscularis propria requiring full-thickness removal	R0 resection possible	Technically demanding	52.0±approx. 8–12 minutes (varies)
		Avoids laparoscopic surgery	Risk of peritonitis
		Seals wall defect with OTSC/OverStitch	Requires suturing device
STER	SELs in esophagus and gastric cardia	Preserves mucosa	Not ideal for fundus or >4 cm lesions	92.1±40.8 minutes
		Lower risk of leakage	Technically demanding
		Shorter recovery	Technically demanding
LECS	Larger SELs, lesions in difficult locations (e.g., EG junction, cardia)	Precise localization with endoscopy	Risk of tumor seeding (classical LECS)	190.2±66.8 minutes
		Minimal resection of healthy tissue	Requires OR, surgical team
		Multidisciplinary	Requires OR, surgical team

Data are presented as means±standard deviations or medians.

ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EBL, endoscopic band ligation; EFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; STER, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection; LECS, laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery; SELs, subepithelial lesions; GISTs, gastrointestinal stromal tumors; esp., especially; EG, esophagogastric; OTSC, over-the-scope clip system; OR, operating room; SD, standard deviation.

REFERENCES

1. Abulawi A, Hasak S, Torres RM, et al. Gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: evolution in management and endoscopic resection techniques. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2025;27:12.

2. Cecinato P, Sinagra E, Laterza L, et al. Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal lesions by using third space endoscopy techniques. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2024;71:101931.

3. Meng Y, Cao C, Song S, Li Y, Liu S. Endoscopic band ligation versus endoscopic submucosal dissection and laparoscopic resection for small gastric stromal tumors. Surg Endosc 2016;30:2873–2878.

4. Joo MK, Park JJ, Kim H, et al. Endoscopic versus surgical resection of GI stromal tumors in the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:318–326.

5. Zhou PH, Yao LQ, Qin XY, et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection without laparoscopic assistance for gastric submucosal tumors originated from the muscularis propria. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2926–2931.

6. An W, Sun PB, Gao J, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4522–4531.

7. Yu C, Liao G, Fan C, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs. Surg Endosc 2017;31:4799–4804.

8. Kim MY, Park YS, Choi KD, et al. Predictors of recurrence after resection of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors of 5 cm or less. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:130–137.

9. Deshaies I, Cherenfant J, Gusani NJ, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) recurrence following surgery: review of the clinical utility of imatinib treatment. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2010;6:453–458.

10. Sun S, Ge N, Wang C, Wang M, Lü Q. Endoscopic band ligation of small gastric stromal tumors and follow-up by endoscopic ultrasonography. Surg Endosc 2007;21:574–578.

11. Zheng Z, Jiao G, Wang T, Chen X, Wang B. Ligation-assisted endoscopic enucleation for the resection of gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria: analysis of efficacy and facility. Dig Surg 2016;33:488–494.

12. Suzuki H, Ikeda K. Endoscopic mucosal resection and full thickness resection with complete defect closure for early gastrointestinal malignancies. Endoscopy 2001;33:437–439.

13. Kantsevoy SV, Thuluvath PJ. Successful closure of a chronic refractory gastrocutaneous fistula with a new endoscopic suturing device (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:688–690.

14. Brechmann T, Schmiegel W. Successful treatment of life-threatening bleeding from a duodenal posterior bulb peptic ulcer by an over-the-scope-clip. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:1666–1669.

15. Schmidt A, Meier B, Caca K. Endoscopic full-thickness resection: current status. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:9273–9285.

16. Valli PV, Mertens J, Bauerfeind P. Safe and successful resection of difficult GI lesions using a novel single-step full-thickness resection device (FTRD^®). Surg Endosc 2018;32:289–299.

17. Guo J, Liu Z, Sun S, et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection with defect closure using an over-the-scope clip for gastric subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria. Surg Endosc 2015;29:3356–3362.

18. Ye LP, Yu Z, Mao XL, Zhu LH, Zhou XB. Endoscopic full-thickness resection with defect closure using clips and an endoloop for gastric subepithelial tumors arising from the muscularis propria. Surg Endosc 2014;28:1978–1983.

19. Lu J, Jiao T, Li Y, Zheng M, Lu X. Facilitating retroflexed endoscopic full-thickness resection through loop-mediated or rope-mediated countertraction (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:223–228.

20. Shichijo S, Uedo N, Sawada A, et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors: Japanese multicenter prospective study. Dig Endosc 2024;36:811–821.

21. Xu MD, Cai MY, Zhou PH, et al. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection: a new technique for treating upper GI submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:195–199.

22. Inoue H, Ikeda H, Hosoya T, et al. Submucosal endoscopic tumor resection for subepithelial tumors in the esophagus and cardia. Endoscopy 2012;44:225–230.

23. Wang H, Tan Y, Zhou Y, et al. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;27:776–780.

24. Tan Y, Huo J, Liu D. Current status of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Oncol Lett 2017;14:5085–5090.

25. Lu J, Lu X, Jiao T, Zheng M. Endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors arising from muscularis propria. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014;48:667–673.

26. Wang L, Ren W, Zhang Z, Yu J, Li Y, Song Y. Retrospective study of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) for surgical resection of esophageal leiomyoma. Surg Endosc 2013;27:4259–4266.

27. Tan Y, Tang X, Guo T, et al. Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Surg Endosc 2017;31:3376–3382.

28. Wang H, Tan Y, Huo J, Liu D. Submucosal 1-tunnel endoscopic resection for treating upper gastrointestinal multiple submucosal tumor originating from the muscularis propria layer: a report of 12 cases. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e14484.

29. Matsuda T, Nunobe S, Kosuga T, et al. Laparoscopic and luminal endoscopic cooperative surgery can be a standard treatment for submucosal tumors of the stomach: a retrospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2017;49:476–483.

30. Kanehira E, Kanehira AK, Tanida T, Takahashi K, Obana Y, Sasaki K. CLEAN-NET: a modified laparoendoscopic wedge resection of the stomach to minimize the sacrifice of innocent gastric wall. Surg Endosc 2020;34:290–297.

31. Yin X, Yin Y, Chen H, et al. Comparison analysis of three different types of minimally invasive procedures for gastrointestinal stromal tumors ≤5 cm. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018;28:58–64.

32. Inoue H, Ikeda H, Hosoya T, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and beyond: full-layer resection for gastric cancer with nonexposure technique (CLEAN-NET). Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2012;21:129–140.

33. Goto O, Mitsui T, Fujishiro M, et al. New method of endoscopic full-thickness resection: a pilot study of non-exposed endoscopic wall-inversion surgery in an ex vivo porcine model. Gastric Cancer 2011;14:183–187.

34. Kim CG, Yoon HM, Lee JY, et al. Nonexposure endolaparoscopic full-thickness resection with simple suturing technique. Endoscopy 2015;47:1171–1174.

35. Kikuchi S, Nishizaki M, Kuroda S, et al. Nonexposure laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (closed laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery) for gastric submucosal tumor. Gastric Cancer 2017;20:553–557.

36. Nishida T, Hirota S, Yanagisawa A, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in Japan: English version. Int J Clin Oncol 2008;13:416–430.

37. Blay JY, Bonvalot S, Casali P, et al. Consensus meeting for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Report of the GIST Consensus Conference of 20-21 March 2004, under the auspices of ESMO. Ann Oncol 2005;16:566–578.

38. Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ann Surg 2006;243:738–745; discussion 745-747.

39. Bédard EL, Mamazza J, Schlachta CM, Poulin EC. Laparoscopic resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: not all tumors are created equal. Surg Endosc 2006;20:500–503.

40. Kim KH, Kim MC, Jung GJ, Kim SJ, Jang JS, Kwon HC. Long term survival results for gastric GIST: is laparoscopic surgery for large gastric GIST feasible? World J Surg Oncol 2012;10:230.

41. De Vogelaere K, Van Loo I, Peters O, Hoorens A, Haentjens P, Delvaux G. Laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is safe and effective, irrespective of tumor size. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2339–2345.

42. Masoni L, Gentili I, Maglio R, et al. Laparoscopic resection of large gastric GISTs: feasibility and long-term results. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2905–2910.

43. Honda M, Hiki N, Nunobe S, et al. Long-term and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2317–2322.

44. Jeong IH, Kim JH, Lee SR, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: laparoscopic and endoscopic approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012;22:244–250.

45. Shen C, Chen H, Yin Y, et al. Endoscopic versus open resection for small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: safety and outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e376.

46. Zhang Q, Gao LQ, Han ZL, Li XF, Wang LH, Liu SD. Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic resection for gastric GISTs: a systematic review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2018;27:127–137.

47. Sandmann M, Heike M, Faehndrich M. Application of the OTSC system for the closure of fistulas, anastomosal leakages and perforations within the gastrointestinal tract. Z Gastroenterol 2011;49:981–985.

48. Kirschniak A, Kratt T, Stüker D, Braun A, Schurr MO, Königsrainer A. A new endoscopic over-the-scope clip system for treatment of lesions and bleeding in the GI tract: first clinical experiences. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:162–167.

49. Maekawa S, Nomura R, Murase T, Ann Y, Harada M. Complete closure of artificial gastric ulcer after endoscopic submucosal dissection by combined use of a single over-the-scope clip and through-the-scope clips (with videos). Surg Endosc 2015;29:500–504.

50. Mori H, Ayaki M, Kobara H, et al. Suitable closure for post-duodenal endoscopic resection taking medical costs into consideration. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:5281–5286.

51. Goto O, Sasaki M, Ishii H, et al. A new endoscopic closure method for gastric mucosal defects: feasibility of endoscopic hand suturing in an ex vivo porcine model (with video). Endosc Int Open 2014;2:E111–E116.

52. Mori H, Kobara H, Fujihara S, et al. Feasibility of pure EFTR using an innovative new endoscopic suturing device: the Double-arm-bar Suturing System (with video). Surg Endosc 2014;28:683–690.