Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and endoscopic cardial constriction ligation (ECCL) on treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted on the data of 48 consecutive patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, who underwent ARMS or ECCL at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from December 2015 to August 2018. Twenty cases were in the ARMS group and 28 cases in the ECCL group. The short-term and long-term efficacies were compared between the two groups.Results:The success rate of operation was 100.0% in the both groups. The operation time of the ECCL group was significantly shorter than that of the ARMS group (8.43±1.59 min VS 34.05±12.35 min, t=-9.227, P<0.001). After 2 months follow-up, the symptom improvement rate of the ECCL group and the ARMS group was 89.3% (25/28) and 60.0% (12/20), respectively ( χ2=4.128, P=0.042). The GERD Q score of the ECCL group was significantly lower than that of the ARMS group (6.24 ±1.22 VS 7.35±1.79, t=-2.400, P=0.023). One year after operation, there were no significant differences in the symptom improvement rate, GERD Q score, DeMeester score and the time percentage of pH<4 between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The long-term clinical effect of ARMS and ECCL is similar, but the short-term clinical effect of ECCL is superior to ARMS.

Data of 55 cases of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (G-NENS) with diameter ≤12 mm in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from August 2014 to August 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the methods of endoscopic resection, the patients were divided into two groups: the endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap (EMR-C) group (35 cases) and the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) group (20 cases). The results showed that the success rates of operation, the whole resection rates and the complete resection rates were all 100.0% in the two groups. Compared with the ESD group, the EMR-C group had a shorter median operation time (12.00 min VS 28.35 min, P<0.001), less mean hospitalization costs (21 165.19 yuan VS 28 400.35 yuan, P=0.004), and a similar overall incidence of complications [2.86% (1/35) VS 0, P=1.000]. By March 2020, the recurrence rate of EMR-C group and ESD group were 28.6% (10/35) and 15.0% (3/20), respectively, without significant difference ( P=0.418). It is suggested that for G-NENS with diameter ≤12 mm, without muscular invasion, lymph node metastasis or distant metastasis, EMR-C and ESD are both safe and effective, but EMR-C has more advantages in terms of operation time and hospitalization costs.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) with a maximum diameter of 2 to 5 cm, and to analyze the influence of factors such as tumor surface, growth pattern and lesion origin on the choice of resection method, so as to provide a safer and more effective treatment for patients with gastric GIST.Methods:From January 2012 to November 2019, at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, the clinical data of 301 patients with gastric GIST who underwent endoscopic resection (137 cases in the endoscopic resection group) or laparoscopic surgery (164 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group) were retrospectively analyzed, including age, gender, whether there was depression on the tumor surface (the local subsidence depth of the mucosa on the tumor surface was >5 mm), whether the tumor surface was irregular (non-hemispherical or non-elliptical tumor surface), whether there was combined ulcer, location, shape, origin of the lesion, growth pattern (intralumina growth or combined intraluminal and extraluminal growth), risk classification (very low risk, low risk, medium risk, high risk), whether the tumor was en bloc resection, operation time, whether bleeding or not, fasting time, indwelling time of gastric tube, time of hospitalization, time of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications and follow-up. Independent sample t test, chi-square test or Fisher′s exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analysis. Results:Among the 137 patients with gastric GIST in the endoscopic resection group, 85 cases (62.0%) underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection, 9 cases (6.6%) underwent endoscopic submucosal excavation, 42 cases (30.7%) underwent endoscopic full-thickness resection, and 1 case (0.7%) underwent submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection. There were no significant differences in gender, age, lesion location, tumor size, and risk classification between the endoscopic resection group and the laparoscopic surgery group (all P>0.05). The tumor surface was depressed, with ulcer or irregular in 1, 49, 26, and 2 cases of patients with gastric GIST of very low risk, low risk, medium risk and high risk, respectively. There was statistically significant difference in the proportion of depression, irregularity and ulcer on the tumor surface at different risk levels ( Z=-2.55, P=0.011). The complete tumor resection rate of the endoscopic resection group was lower than that of the laparoscopic surgery group (86.1%, 118/137 vs. 100.0%, 164/164), and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=24.28, P<0.001). However the operation time, fasting time, the indwelling time of gastric tube, time of hospitalization, and the time of postoperative hospital stay of the endoscopic resection group were shorter than those of the laparoscopic surgery group, and the total hospitalization cost was lower than that of the laparoscopic surgery group (90.0 min (62.5 min, 150.0 min) vs. 119.5 min, (80.0 min, 154.2 min); 3 d (3 d, 4 d) vs. 5 d (4 d, 7 d); 3 d (2 d, 4 d) vs. 4 d (2 d, 6 d); 11 d (10 d, 14 d) vs. 16 d (12 d, 20 d); 7 d (6 d, 9 d) vs. 9 d (7 d, 11 d); (38 211.6±10 221.0) yuan vs. (59 926.1±17 786.1) yuan), and the differences were statistically significant ( Z=-2.46, -7.12, -4.44, -6.89 and -5.92, t=-13.24; all P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative abdominal pain and other severe postoperative complications (including shock, respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, gastroparesis, etc.) of the endoscopic resection group were all lower than those of the laparoscopic surgery group (16.8%, 23/137 vs. 27.4%, 45/164; 0.7%, 1/137 vs. 4.9%, 8/164), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=4.84, Fisher′s exact test, P=0.028 and 0.043). There were no significant differences in the incidence of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative bleeding, fever and perforation between the two groups (all P>0.05). The incidence of operation-related complications of lesions with intraluminal growth and originating from muscularis propria in the endoscopic resection group were lower than those of the laparoscopic surgery group (19.5%, 25/128 vs. 32.6%, 45/138; 12.6%, 12/95 vs. 31.4%, 37/118), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=5.86 and 10.42, P=0.016 and 0.001). There was no significant difference in the postoperative tumor recurrent rate between the endoscopic resection group and the laparoscopic surgery group (0, 0/137 vs. 2.4%, 4/164; Fisher’s exact test, P=0.129). Conclusions:Endoscopic treatment is safe and effective for gastric GIST with a maximum diameter of 2 to 5 cm, which is superior to laparoscopic surgery. However, laparoscopic surgery is recommended for tumor with depressed, ulcerative, or irregular surface and combined intraluminal and extraluminal growth.