Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) combines advantages of endoscopy and laparoscopy in order to resect upper gastrointestinal lesions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LECS in patients with EGJ (esophagogastric junction), gastric and duodenal lesions, as well as to compare LECS with pure endoscopic and pure laparoscopic procedures. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched. Efficacy (R0, recurrence) and safety (conversion rate, procedure and hospitalization time, adverse events, mortality) outcomes were extracted and pooled (odds ratio or mean difference) using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and heterogeneity by Cochran’s Q test and I2 . Subgroup analysis according to location was performed. Results: This meta-analysis included 24 studies/1,336 patients (all retrospective cohorts). No significant differences were found between LECS and preexisting techniques (endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/laparoscopy) regarding any outcomes. However, there was a trend to shorter hospitalization time, longer procedure duration, and fewer adverse events in LECS versus Laparoscopy and ESD. R0 tended to be higher in the LECS group. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in gastric versus EGJ lesions (mean 7.3 vs. 13.7 days, 95% CI: 6.6–7.9 vs. 8.9–19.3). There were no significant differences in conversion rate, adverse events, or mean procedural time according to location. There was a trend to higher conversion rate and longer procedure durations in EGJ and higher rate of adverse events in duodenal lesions. Conclusion: LECS is a valid, safe, and effective treatment option in patients with EGJ, gastric, and duodenal lesions, although existing studies are retrospective and prone to selection bias. Prospective studies are needed to assess if LECS is superior to established techniques. Key Messages: LECS is safe and effective in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal lesions, but there is no evidence of superiority over established techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".