BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection (ESTD) has been proved to be safe and effective for removal of esophageal submucosal tumors (SMTs) and can maintain the mucosal integrity compared with other endoscopic methods. The aim of the study was to estimate the safety and efficacy of ESTD as well as compare its efficacy with thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal SMTs, which is used increasingly as a minimally invasive approach. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients with esophageal SMTs <40 mm who underwent ESTD or thoracoscopic enucleation at Nanfang Hospital between January 2008 and August 2016. Epidemiologic data (sex, age), tumor location, tumor size, en bloc resection rate, adverse events, pathologic results, length of postoperative hospital stay, and cost were compared between ESTD and thoracoscopic enucleation. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included. A total of 74 patients underwent ESTD, and the other 52 underwent thoracoscopic enucleation. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in sex, age, tumor size, hospitalization expense, infection, adverse events, and en bloc resection rate (P < .05). However, patients in the ESTD group had a shorter operating time, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of postoperative hospital stay, and lower chest pain level (P < .05). Kaplan-Meier curves for disease-free survival also showed no statistically significant difference between ESTD and thoracoscopic enucleation groups during the median follow-up of 19.5 and 42 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment efficacy was comparable between the ESTD and thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal SMTs <40 mm. However, there was a significant advantage in the ESTD group for a shorter operating time, reduced postoperative chest pain, and shorter hospitalization.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection (ESTD) has been proved to be safe and effective for removal of esophageal submucosal tumors (SMTs) and can maintain the mucosal integrity compared with other endoscopic methods. The aim of the study was to estimate the safety and efficacy of ESTD as well as compare its efficacy with thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal SMTs, which is used increasingly as a minimally invasive approach. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients with esophageal SMTs <40 mm who underwent ESTD or thoracoscopic enucleation at Nanfang Hospital between January 2008 and August 2016. Epidemiologic data (sex, age), tumor location, tumor size, en bloc resection rate, adverse events, pathologic results, length of postoperative hospital stay, and cost were compared between ESTD and thoracoscopic enucleation. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included. A total of 74 patients underwent ESTD, and the other 52 underwent thoracoscopic enucleation. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in sex, age, tumor size, hospitalization expense, infection, adverse events, and en bloc resection rate (P < .05). However, patients in the ESTD group had a shorter operating time, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of postoperative hospital stay, and lower chest pain level (P < .05). Kaplan-Meier curves for disease-free survival also showed no statistically significant difference between ESTD and thoracoscopic enucleation groups during the median follow-up of 19.5 and 42 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment efficacy was comparable between the ESTD and thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal SMTs <40 mm. However, there was a significant advantage in the ESTD group for a shorter operating time, reduced postoperative chest pain, and shorter hospitalization.