Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a randomized controlled trial

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 23 March 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background and aims

Surgical resection is considered the first treatment option for submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer while submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is proved to be a safe and effective method for treating SMTs. This study aimed to compare video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation (VATE) with STER for treating esophageal SMTs.

Methods

Sixty-six patients with small esophageal SMTs were prospectively randomized from July 2014 to December 2015. After exclusion of 8 patients, 58 subjects scheduled for STER or VATE were enrolled. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and adverse events (AEs) data were collected and analyzed between STER and VATE.

Results

Forty-six males and 12 females with a mean age of 46.1 ± 9.4 years were randomized to the STER (n = 30) and VATE (n = 28) groups, respectively. Demographics and lesion features were similar between the two groups. Median procedure time was shorter in the STER group than the VATE group (44.5 vs. 106.5 min, P < 0.001); cost was lower in the STER group (4499.46 vs. 6137.32 USD, P = 0.010). Median decrease in hemoglobin levels post-procedure was − 1.6 g/L in the STER group and 14.7 g/L after VATE (P = 0.001). Lower postoperative pain scores were found in the STER group compared with the VATE group (2 vs. 4, P < 0.001). No recurrent or residual tumors were found in either group. En bloc resection rates, complete resection rates, hospital times, and post-procedure AEs were similar between two groups. The en bloc resection rates for SMTs < 20.0 mm were 100% in both groups while STER achieved only 71.4% en bloc resection rate for SMTs ≥ 20.0 mm.

Conclusion

STER and VATE are comparably effective for esophageal SMTs; however, STER is superior to VATE with shorter operation time and decreased cost, and seems safer than VATE. STER is recommended for SMTs < 20.0 mm while VATE is recommended for SMTs with a transverse diameter > 35.0 mm.

Clinical trail registration statement: This study is registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=4814. The registration identification number is ChiCTR-TRC-14004759. The registration date is April 30, 2014.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 23 March 2018

    In the original article, there are two errors in Table 3: 1. There were 8 patients undergoing VATE suffer from moderate fever, not 9. 2. In the fourth line of outcomes, saying “pneumothorax, moderate fever and moderate fever,” “moderate fever” was repeated.

References

  1. Hedenbro JL, Ekelund M, Wetterberg P (1991) Endoscopic diagnosis of submucosal gastric lesions. The results after routine endoscopy. Surg Endosc 5(1):20–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nishida T, Kawai N, Yamaguchi S, Nishida Y (2013) Submucosal tumors: comprehensive guide for the diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Dig Endosc 25(5):479–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Connolly EM, Gaffney E, Reynolds JV (2003) Gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Br J Surg 90(10):1178–1186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gill KR, Camellini L, Conigliaro R, Sassatelli R, Azzolini F, Messerotti A, Woodward TA, Wallace MB, Jamil LH, Raimondo M (2009) The natural history of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: a multicenter endoscopic ultrasound survey. J Clin Gastroenterol 43(8):723–726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Polkowski M, Butruk E (2005) Submucosal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 15(1):33–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American Gastroenterological Association I (2006) American Gastroenterological Association Institute medical position statement on the management of gastric subepithelial masses. Gastroenterology 130 (7):2215–2216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Antonescu CR, DeMatteo RP, Ganjoo KN, Maki RG, Pisters PW, Raut CP, Riedel RF, Schuetze S, Sundar HM, Trent JC, Wayne JD (2010) NCCN Task Force report: update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8(Suppl 2):S1–S41 quiz S42–44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hoda KM, Rodriguez SA, Faigel DO (2009) EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 69(7):1218–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Polkowski M, Bergman JJ (2010) Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biopsy for submucosal tumors: needless needling? Endoscopy 42(4):324–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. El Chafic AH, Loren D, Siddiqui A, Mounzer R, Cosgrove N, Kowalski T (2017) Comparison of FNA and fine-needle biopsy for EUS-guided sampling of suspected GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 86(3):510–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Levy MJ, Jondal ML, Clain J, Wiersema MJ (2003) Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 57(1):101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams DB, Sahai AV, Aabakken L, Penman ID, van Velse A, Webb J, Wilson M, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH (1999) Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: a large single centre experience. Gut 44(5):720–726

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cantor MJ, Davila RE, Faigel DO (2006) Yield of tissue sampling for subepithelial lesions evaluated by EUS: a comparison between forceps biopsies and endoscopic submucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 64(1):29–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim GH (2012) Endoscopic resection of subepithelial tumors. Clin Endosc 45(3):240–244

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shin S, Choi YS, Shim YM, Kim HK, Kim K, Kim J (2014) Enucleation of esophageal submucosal tumors: a single institution’s experience. Ann Thorac Surg 97(2):454–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen NT, Reavis KM, El-Badawi K, Hinojosa MW, Smith BR (2008) Minimally invasive surgical enucleation or esophagogastrectomy for benign tumor of the esophagus. Surg Innov 15(2):120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang Q, Wang F, Wei G, Cai JQ, Zhi FC, Bai Y (2017) Endoscopic resection of gastric submucosal tumors: a comparison of endoscopic nontunneling with tunneling resection and a systematic review. Saudi J Gastroenterol 23(1):52–59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Goto O, Uraoka T, Horii J, Yahagi N (2014) Expanding indications for ESD: submucosal disease (SMT/carcinoid tumors). Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 24(2):169–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou PH, Yao LQ, Qin XY, Cai MY, Xu MD, Zhong YS, Chen WF, Zhang YQ, Qin WZ, Hu JW, Liu JZ (2011) Endoscopic full-thickness resection without laparoscopic assistance for gastric submucosal tumors originated from the muscularis propria. Surg Endosc 25(9):2926–2931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu MD, Cai MY, Zhou PH, Qin XY, Zhong YS, Chen WF, Hu JW, Zhang YQ, Ma LL, Qin WZ, Yao LQ (2012) Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection: a new technique for treating upper GI submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 75(1):195–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lu J, Jiao T, Zheng M, Lu X (2014) Endoscopic resection of submucosal tumors in muscularis propria: the choice between direct excavation and tunneling resection. Surg Endosc 28(12):3401–3407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhou DJ, Dai ZB, Wells MM, Yu DL, Zhang J, Zhang L (2015) Submucosal tunneling and endoscopic resection of submucosal tumors at the esophagogastric junction. World J Gastroenterol 21(2):578–583

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mao XL, Ye LP, Zheng HH, Zhou XB, Zhu LH, Zhang Y (2017) Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection using methylene-blue guidance for cardial subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Dis Esophagus 30(3):1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Li QY, Meng Y, Xu YY, Zhang Q, Cai JQ, Zheng HX, Qing HT, Huang SL, Han ZL, Li AM, Huang Y, Zhang YL, Zhi FC, Cai RJ, Li Y, Gong W, Liu SD (2017) Comparison of endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection and thoracoscopic enucleation for the treatment of esophageal submucosal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 86(3):485–491

  25. Tan Y, Lv L, Duan T, Zhou J, Peng D, Tang Y, Liu D (2016) Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for large esophageal leiomyoma originating from the muscularis propria layer. Surg Endosc 30(7):3121–3127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Luh SP, Hou SM, Fang CC, Chen CY (2012) Video-thoracoscopic enucleation of esophageal leiomyoma. World J Surg Oncol 10:52

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Group EESNW. (2012) Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 23 Suppl 7:49–55

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nishida T, Hirota S, Yanagisawa A, Sugino Y, Minami M, Yamamura Y, Otani Y, Shimada Y, Takahashi F, Kubota T, Subcommittee GG (2008) Clinical practice guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in Japan: English version. Int J Clin Oncol 13(5):416–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shi Q, Zhong YS, Yao LQ, Zhou PH, Xu MD, Wang P (2011) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of esophageal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Gastrointest Endosc 74(6):1194–1200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abe N, Takeuchi H, Ooki A, Nagao G, Masaki T, Mori T, Sugiyama M (2013) Recent developments in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: towards the era of endoscopic resection of layers deeper than the submucosa. Dig Endosc 25(Suppl 1):64–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang Y, Ye LP, Zhou XB, Mao XL, Zhu LH, He BL, Huang Q (2013) Safety and efficacy of endoscopic excavation for gastric subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: results from a large study in China. J Clin Gastroenterol 47(8):689–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Reinehr R (2015) Endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) is a safe and useful technique for endoscopic removal of submucosal tumors of the stomach and the esophagus in selected cases. Z Gastroenterol 53(6):573–578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Yao L, Zhong Y, Qi Z (2015) Application of endoscopic resection for colorectal neoplasms. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi 18(6):536–539

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. von Rahden BH, Stein HJ, Feussner H, Siewert JR (2004) Enucleation of submucosal tumors of the esophagus: minimally invasive versus open approach. Surg Endosc 18(6):924–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang G, Zhao H, Yang F, Li J, Li Y, Liu Y, Liu J, Wang J (2009) Thoracoscopic enucleation of esophageal leiomyoma: a retrospective study on 40 cases. Dis Esophagus 22(3):279–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen T, Zhang C, Yao LQ, Zhou PH, Zhong YS, Zhang YQ, Chen WF, Li QL, Cai MY, Chu Y, Xu MD (2016) Management of the complications of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. Endoscopy 48(2):149–155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang H, Tan Y, Zhou Y, Wang Y, Li C, Zhou J, Duan T, Zhang J, Liu D (2015) Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27(7):776–780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tan Y, Liu D (2015) En bloc submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for a giant esophageal leiomyoma. Gastrointest Endosc 82(2):399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tan Y, Zhu H, Lv L, Liu D (2016) Enlarging an accidental mucosotomy to facilitate tumor extraction during submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for a giant esophageal leiomyoma. Gastrointest Endosc 83(1):248–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Maydeo A, Sharma A, Bhandari S, Dhir V (2015) Submucosal tunneling and endoscopic resection of a large, esophageal leiomyoma. Gastrointest Endosc 82(5):954

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank for the following doctors who made an contribution to this study in patients’ follow-up and operative procedures: Xiangyang Chu, Wen Li, Jiangyun Meng, Hong Du and Hongbin Wang.

Funding

This study was supported by research Grants from two Chinese PLA General Hospital Clinical Researches (2012FC-TSYS-3035 and YS201404).

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Fuxing Road 28. Haidian District, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

      Ningli Chai, Chen Du, Ying Gao, Xiaotong Niu, Yaqi Zhai, Enqiang Linghu, Zhongsheng Lu, Zhenjuan Li, Xiangdong Wang & Ping Tang

    2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

      Yang Liu & Bo Yang

    Authors
    1. Ningli Chai
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Chen Du
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Ying Gao
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Xiaotong Niu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Yaqi Zhai
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Enqiang Linghu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Yang Liu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Bo Yang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    9. Zhongsheng Lu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    10. Zhenjuan Li
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    11. Xiangdong Wang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    12. Ping Tang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Enqiang Linghu.

    Ethics declarations

    Disclosures

    Drs. Ningli Chai, Chen Du, Ying Gao, Xiaotong Niu, Yaqi Zhai, Enqiang Linghu, Yang Liu, Bo Yang, Zhongsheng Lu, Zhenjuan Li, Xiangdong Wang, and Ping Tang have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

    Additional information

    Ningli Chai and Chen Du contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Chai, N., Du, C., Gao, Y. et al. Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 32, 3364–3372 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6057-8

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6057-8

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation