A137 LAPAROSCOPIC ENDOSCOPIC COOPERATIVE SURGERY FOR GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOURS: EARLY EXPERIENCE IN A CANADIAN ACADEMIC CENTRE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Surgical resection with laparoscopic gastric wedge resection is commonly conducted for local management of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). However, resection margins are often difficult to appreciate for lesions with larger endophytic components. As a result, tumour margins may be compromised or excess tissue resected. Laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) was developed in Japan to overcome these technical challenges in the resection of subepithelial lesions, including GISTs. Here, we present a case report of an early Canadian experience utilizing LECS in the management of gastric GIST. Aims To describe a case report of an early Canadian experience of LECS for the resection of a gastric GIST. Methods We performed a review of the literature and describe a case of LECS. Results We present a 70-year-old female referred to our centre for endoscopic resection of a 2.5x2.5cm histologically confirmed gastric GIST (low mitotic index and no known metastases). Repeat endoscopic evaluation at our centre confirmed a 25-30mm subepithelial lesion with both exophytic (small) and endophytic (large) components. After tumour board review, we opted for a LECS approach. In the OR, the lesion was identified endoscopically and marked with a Dual J-Knife (Olympus). The margins were injected with a combination of Voluven, methylene blue, and dilute epinephrine. A circumferential incision was then completed using standard ESD technique. The lesion was subsequently identified laparoscopically, with endoscopic guidance, along the lesser curvature. The lesser omentum was mobilized for clear visualization of the serosa around the lesion. A full thickness incision was made endoscopically along the distal aspect of lesion. Full thickness resection was continued endoscopically for one third of the circumference of the lesion until gastric insufflation became compromised. Full thickness resection was completed laparoscopically under endoscopic guidance with grossly negative margins. The defect was closed with running laparoscopic sutures. Endoscopic leak test was performed which was negative. The specimen was retrieved and follow up pathology demonstrated a GIST with low mitotic index and negative margins without tumour rupture. Conclusions In a review of the literature, LECS appears to minimize tissue resection while maintaining R0 resection rates. This technique is especially useful for subepithelial lesions with larger endophytic and transmural components. It has an excellent safety profile with a less than 5% anastomotic leak rate. As such, the literature supports LECS as a suitable procedure for gastric subepithelial lesions <50 mm. However, further studies are needed to compare it systematically to conventional laparoscopic wedge resection in addition to other innovative endoscopic techniques such as STER and EFTR. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».