Objective To investigate whether there has any difference of gastric and small bowel transit time and completion rates between two capsule endoscopes with different size and weight. Methods Clinical data of patients who had undergone OMOM or MiroCam (smaller and lighter than OMOM) capsule endoscopy were retrospectively studied. Comparison of gastric and small bowel transit time and completion rates were made between the two kinds of capsule endoscopy. Results 1, 448 patients (628 in OMOM group and 820 in MiroCam group) were finally includ-ed. In patients with Crohn's disease or suspected Crohn's disease, gastric transit time of OMOM was significantly longer than that of MiroCam [(53.4 ± 52.6) minutes vs (41.1 ± 47.9) minutes, = 0.022]. In patients with gastroin-testinal bleeding, gastric transit time in OMOM was significantly shorter than that in MiroCam [(42.1 ± 44.8) minutes vs (62.0 ± 78.6) minutes, = 0.016). No significant difference in small bowel transit time or completion rate was found. Conclusions We conclude that the differences of gastric transit time, small bowel transit time and completion rates between the two kinds of capsule endoscopy with different size and weight are not significantly. Whereas, in patients with Crohn's disease or suspected Crohn's disease, gastric transit time of smaller and lighter capsule en-doscopy is shorter in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, but longer of gastric transit time in smaller and lighter capsule endoscopy.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-frequency electric dissection for colorectal cysts.Methods The personal information,clinical data,operation methods and postoperative complications of patients who were diagnosed as having colorectal cysts and underwent high-frequency electric dissection in Nanfang hospital and Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University between January 1st,2005 and July 1st,2015 were analysed.All patients enrolled in the study were followed up to obtain their resuits of colonoscopy.Results A total of 63 patients were enrolled into our study,9 lesions located in the ileocecus,17 in the ascending colon,19 in the transverse colon,10 in the descending colon,7 in the sigmoid colon and 1 in the rectum.The maximum diameter of the cysts was 20.2+7.5 mm (5-40 mm).All patients underwent high-frequency electric dissection to remove the cysts completely or part of the cyst wall for drainage.Hemorrhage occurred in only one patient and bleeding stopped after being clipped by Titanium clip.Forty-five patients were followed up and there were no delayed complications or recurrence during a postoperative follow-up of 24.1 + 14.3 months (6-87 months).Conclusion High-frequency electric dissection is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of colorectal cysts.

Objective To compare the diagnostic accuracy of magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for preoperative endoscopic assessment of the invasion depth of colorectal laterally spreading tumour(LST).Methods Data of 104 cases of colorectal LST were included.With the final pathological diagnosis as the golden standard,the accuracies of MCE and EUS for preoperative assessment of the invasion depth of colorectal LST were compared.Results The diagnostic accuracies of MCE and EUS for evaluating the invasion depth of LST were 89.4％ (93/104) and 73.1％ (76/104),respectively(P＜0.05).The lesion size and the endoscopist could affect the accuracy of the EUS evaluation (P=0.017,OR=3.561;P=0.035,OR =1.399).The accuracy of EUS seemed to show a downward trend for colorectal LST of larger diameters.Conclusion Both MCE and EUS are effective for evaluating the invasion depth of colorectal LST,but the accuracy of MCE may be higher than that of EUS.Large diameter of the lesion and the doctor's experience inadequacy may be the risk factors for the accuracy of EUS.

Objective:To compare the efficacy between laparoscopy and open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) larger than 2 cm.Methods:A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Inclusion criteria: long diameter of primary gastric GIST > 2 cm; undergoing laparoscopy or open surgery; diagnosis confirmed by postoperative pathology without distant metastasis; without preoperative targeted therapy. Clinicopathological data of 857 gastric GIST patients, including 320 in PLA General Hospital, 284 in Shanghai Renji Hospital, 175 in Wuhan Union Hospital and 78 in Tianjin Cancer Hospital, from January 2010 to May 2017 were retrospectively collected. There were 418 males and 439 females, mainly aged between 50 and 70 years old. Among 857 patients, 413 were in the laparoscopy group and 444 in the open group. The nearest neighbor matching of propensity score matching method was conducted with 1:1 matching based on tumor location and size between laparoscopy and open group to obtain samples of covariate equilibrium, and the caliper value was 0.04. The t test, χ 2 test and Wilcoxon rank test were used to compare short-term efficacy, and the Kaplan-Meier curve and log rank test were applied to compare long-term outcomes between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, laparoscopy group and open group both enrolled 293 cases. The baseline data, including age, gender, tumor location, tumor long diameter, NIH classification, etc. were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with the open group, the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml: 2.9% (155/293) vs. 36.2% (106/293), Z=-12.857, P<0.001], shorter time to postoperative feeding [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (5.3±0.9) days, t=1.505, P=0.003] and to the removal of drainage tube [(4.8±1.0) days vs. (6.5±1.0) days, t=1.847, P=0.008], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(8.6±0.3) days vs. (10.5±0.3) days, t=4.235, P<0.001]. Subgroups analysis according to anatomical location: (1) Gastric cardia and pylorus: there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative parameters between the two groups (all P>0.05). (2) Stomach base: feeding time after surgery [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.5±0.2) days, t=0.512, P=0.038], drainage tube removal time [(5.1±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.6) days, t=0.517, P=0.044], postoperative hospital stay [(8.0±0.5) days vs. (11.1±0.9) days, t=0.500, P=0.002] were all significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group as compared to the open group, while the differences in other perioperative parameters were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (3) Lesser curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 58.1% (43/74) vs. 33.7% (25/74), Z=7.632, P=0.034], shorter gastric tube removal time [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.2±0.3) days, t=0.503, P=0.007], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.8±0.1) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.532, P=0.030], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.3±0.2) days, t=0.508, P=0.020], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.2±0.4) days vs. (5.7±0.5) days, t=0.508, P=0.020] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.3±0.6) days vs. (10.7±0.3) days, t=0.502, P=0.006] as compared to the open group. (4) Great curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group presented less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 52.7% (39/74) vs. 36.5% (27/74), Z=7.681, P=0.032], earlier gastric tube removal [(2.6±0.2) days vs. (3.6±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.001], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.016], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.0±0.5) days to (5.9±0.4) days, t=0.508, P=0.002] and postoperative hospital stay [(7.5±0.3) days to (9.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] than the open group. Subgroup analysis according to tumor size: (1) Tumor long diameter 2.0-5.0 cm: the laparoscopy group had earlier passage of gas [(2.9±0.1) days vs. (3.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], earlier postoperative feeding [(4.5±0.1) days vs. (5.0±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.013], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.8±0.3) days vs. (6.0±0.3) days, t=0.511, P=0.008] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.1±0.4) days to (10.1±0.3) days, t=0.513, P=0.001] than the open group. (2) Tumor long diameter 5.1-10.0 cm: in the laparoscopic group, postoperative feeding time [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.506, P=0.015], drainage tube removal time [(4.6±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.5)) days, t=0.501, P=0.004], postoperative hospital stay [(8.2±0.3) days vs. (10.9±0.6) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] were all shorter than those in the open group. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed in each group. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of the laparoscopy group and the open group were 95.4% and 91.6%, respectively ( P=0.734), and the 5-year overall survival rates were 93.8% and 90.8% ( P=0.691), respectively, and the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions:In experienced medical centers, laparoscopic surgery for gastric GIST larger than 2 cm is safe and feasible, and can achieve comparable efficacy with open surgery. For gastric GISTs which do not locate in the greater curvature and the anterior wall of the stomach, and whose long diameter is ≤5 cm, laparoscopic surgery does not increase the risk of recurrence and metastasis, and can accelerate postoperative recovery.

Objective:To compare the efficacy between laparoscopy and open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) larger than 2 cm.Methods:A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Inclusion criteria: long diameter of primary gastric GIST > 2 cm; undergoing laparoscopy or open surgery; diagnosis confirmed by postoperative pathology without distant metastasis; without preoperative targeted therapy. Clinicopathological data of 857 gastric GIST patients, including 320 in PLA General Hospital, 284 in Shanghai Renji Hospital, 175 in Wuhan Union Hospital and 78 in Tianjin Cancer Hospital, from January 2010 to May 2017 were retrospectively collected. There were 418 males and 439 females, mainly aged between 50 and 70 years old. Among 857 patients, 413 were in the laparoscopy group and 444 in the open group. The nearest neighbor matching of propensity score matching method was conducted with 1:1 matching based on tumor location and size between laparoscopy and open group to obtain samples of covariate equilibrium, and the caliper value was 0.04. The t test, χ 2 test and Wilcoxon rank test were used to compare short-term efficacy, and the Kaplan-Meier curve and log rank test were applied to compare long-term outcomes between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, laparoscopy group and open group both enrolled 293 cases. The baseline data, including age, gender, tumor location, tumor long diameter, NIH classification, etc. were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with the open group, the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml: 2.9% (155/293) vs. 36.2% (106/293), Z=-12.857, P<0.001], shorter time to postoperative feeding [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (5.3±0.9) days, t=1.505, P=0.003] and to the removal of drainage tube [(4.8±1.0) days vs. (6.5±1.0) days, t=1.847, P=0.008], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(8.6±0.3) days vs. (10.5±0.3) days, t=4.235, P<0.001]. Subgroups analysis according to anatomical location: (1) Gastric cardia and pylorus: there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative parameters between the two groups (all P>0.05). (2) Stomach base: feeding time after surgery [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.5±0.2) days, t=0.512, P=0.038], drainage tube removal time [(5.1±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.6) days, t=0.517, P=0.044], postoperative hospital stay [(8.0±0.5) days vs. (11.1±0.9) days, t=0.500, P=0.002] were all significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group as compared to the open group, while the differences in other perioperative parameters were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (3) Lesser curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 58.1% (43/74) vs. 33.7% (25/74), Z=7.632, P=0.034], shorter gastric tube removal time [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.2±0.3) days, t=0.503, P=0.007], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.8±0.1) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.532, P=0.030], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.3±0.2) days, t=0.508, P=0.020], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.2±0.4) days vs. (5.7±0.5) days, t=0.508, P=0.020] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.3±0.6) days vs. (10.7±0.3) days, t=0.502, P=0.006] as compared to the open group. (4) Great curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group presented less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 52.7% (39/74) vs. 36.5% (27/74), Z=7.681, P=0.032], earlier gastric tube removal [(2.6±0.2) days vs. (3.6±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.001], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.016], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.0±0.5) days to (5.9±0.4) days, t=0.508, P=0.002] and postoperative hospital stay [(7.5±0.3) days to (9.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] than the open group. Subgroup analysis according to tumor size: (1) Tumor long diameter 2.0-5.0 cm: the laparoscopy group had earlier passage of gas [(2.9±0.1) days vs. (3.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], earlier postoperative feeding [(4.5±0.1) days vs. (5.0±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.013], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.8±0.3) days vs. (6.0±0.3) days, t=0.511, P=0.008] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.1±0.4) days to (10.1±0.3) days, t=0.513, P=0.001] than the open group. (2) Tumor long diameter 5.1-10.0 cm: in the laparoscopic group, postoperative feeding time [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.506, P=0.015], drainage tube removal time [(4.6±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.5)) days, t=0.501, P=0.004], postoperative hospital stay [(8.2±0.3) days vs. (10.9±0.6) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] were all shorter than those in the open group. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed in each group. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of the laparoscopy group and the open group were 95.4% and 91.6%, respectively ( P=0.734), and the 5-year overall survival rates were 93.8% and 90.8% ( P=0.691), respectively, and the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions:In experienced medical centers, laparoscopic surgery for gastric GIST larger than 2 cm is safe and feasible, and can achieve comparable efficacy with open surgery. For gastric GISTs which do not locate in the greater curvature and the anterior wall of the stomach, and whose long diameter is ≤5 cm, laparoscopic surgery does not increase the risk of recurrence and metastasis, and can accelerate postoperative recovery.