Method Article
The article introduces the surgical method, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the complete removal of intra-abdominal tumors using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). The procedure reaches the stomach by using gastrointestinal endoscopy, creating a controlled perforation for tumor removal, followed by stitching the gastric incision.
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) typically occur in the stomach and proximal small intestine but can also be found in any other part of the digestive tract, including the abdominal cavity, albeit rarely. In the present case, the tumor was resected endoscopically through the anterior gastric wall. Computed tomography (CT) scan and gastroscopy of a 60-year-old woman revealed submucosal lesions in the gastric body. The possibility of a stromal tumor was considered more likely. The endoscopic surgery was performed under endotracheal anesthesia. After a solution had been injected at the lesion site in the stomach, the entire gastric wall was dissected to expose the tumor. As the lesion was in the abdominal cavity and its base was attached to the abdominal wall, it was accessed using a sterilized PCF colonoscope. A sodium chloride injection was administered at the base. The tumor was then peeled along its boundaries using the hooking and excision knife combined with the precutting knife. Subsequently, the tumor was pulled into the stomach through the incision made in the stomach and then extracted externally through the upper digestive tract using the ERCP spiral mesh basket. After confirming the absence of bleeding at the incision site, the endoscope was returned to the stomach, and the stomach opening was closed using purse-string sutures. The patient recovered satisfactorily following the surgery and was discharged on day 4. Histological examination revealed a low-risk stromal tumor (spindle cell type, <5 mitosis/50 high-power fields [HPF]). Immunohistochemistry revealed positive staining for CD34 and CD117, negative staining for SMA, positive staining for DOG1, and negative staining for S100. Additionally, the expression of ki67 was 3%.
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) originate from the mesenchymal tissue of the gastrointestinal wall. GISTs contain pluripotent mesenchymal stem cells and exhibit the potential for malignant behavior. GISTs can manifest in various locations along the digestive tract, with the stomach being the most common site, and occasionally appear in the omentum, mesentery, and peritoneum. Histologically, GISTs contain spindle cells, epithelioid cells, and occasionally pleomorphic cells arranged in a bundle-like or diffuse pattern, reflecting their non-directional differentiation. GIST risk is stratified based on tumor size and nuclear mitotic count1.
Historically, surgical interventions for GISTs primarily comprised open surgery and laparoscopic procedures2. However, recent advancements in digestive endoscopic treatment techniques introduced the possibility of endoscopic resection for certain GISTs, either alone or combined with laparoscopy3. Digestive endoscopy uses the natural body orifices to minimize interference with the abdominal cavity, leading to quicker recovery compared to traditional or laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, developing active perforation and endoscopic suturing techniques enables endoscopy to access the abdominal cavity and effectively remove intra-abdominal lesions following the principles of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Endoscopic resection of GISTs is based on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and tunnel endoscopy techniques. Through endoscopic examination, gastrointestinal tumors or lesions can be precisely located within the digestive lumen. The endoscopic instruments are then used to accurately incise the mucosa, identify lesions located in the submucosal layer, intrinsic muscle layer, or even originating from the serosal layer, and completely remove them along the borders of the lesions. Due to the minimally invasive nature of endoscopy, there is minimal disturbance to the abdominal cavity. Compared to traditional surgery, endoscopic techniques not only ensure the complete removal of lesions but also maximize the preservation of the integrity and continuity of the digestive tract. Patients can resume early oral intake, experience quick recovery, and have significantly shortened hospital stays.4,5,6 With the development of endoscopic active perforation and endoscopic suturing techniques, endoscopy can penetrate into the abdominal cavity through natural orifices, explore and resect intra-abdominal lesions, achieving the effects of NOTES7,8.
As endoscopic treatment techniques continue to evolve, along with related instrument refinement and increased focus on screening, endoscopic submucosal resection is poised to become a mainstream approach for managing such lesions. This article reports a case of a rare intra-abdominal GIST adjacent to the stomach. Successful tumor resection was achieved using digestive endoscopic treatment techniques, showcasing the potential of endoscopy in this domain.
This protocol follows the ethical principles of the Shantou Second People's Hospital and has obtained approval from the Hospital Ethics Committee, as well as informed consent from both patients and their families for this study and related videos.
1. Preoperative preparation and surgical approach planning for GIST resection
2. Aseptic preparation for GIST resection surgery
NOTE: Meticulous adherence to aseptic principles is paramount during such surgeries, given the presence of bacteria within the upper gastrointestinal tract juxtaposed with the sterile nature of the abdominal cavity. This condition necessitates stringent measures to maintain sterility.
3. Prophylactic antibiotic administration for preoperative care
4. Instrumentation and equipment considerations
5. Operation procedure
6. Postoperative care and follow-up
With meticulous preoperative groundwork in place, digestive endoscopic treatment techniques and the innovative approach of controlled perforation have facilitated the feasibility of intraperitoneal GIST resection adjacent to the stomach. Notably, this surgical approach not only features rapid postoperative recovery but also capitalizes on the merits of NOTES.
The fusion of advanced endoscopic methodologies and innovative techniques has redefined the GIST resection landscape. This approach is characterized by its minimally invasive nature and capacity to harness the strengths of NOTES and underscores the authors' commitment to progressive and patient-centered surgical practices. Further refinement of endoscopic treatments is anticipated and will ultimately enhance patient outcomes and foster the evolution of minimally invasive surgical strategies. The surgical procedure proceeded smoothly, and the patient returned to the ward safely after the operation. The surgery lasted approximately 2 h, with minimal intraoperative bleeding, about 1 mL. The intraoperative fluid infusion volume was around 2000 mL, and no blood transfusion was required. To facilitate better healing of the gastric incision, a gastric tube was left in place after the surgery. The patient recovered well postoperatively, with continued prophylactic antibiotic use once. Abdominal conditions were monitored, and on the 2nd to 3rd day postoperatively, the patient began passing gas from the anus. The gastric tube was subsequently removed, and the patient experienced no discomfort after removal, allowing a gradual transition from a liquid to a regular diet. The patient was discharged on the 5th day postoperatively (Table 1). Pathological results indicated a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (size: 3.5 cm x 3.0 cm x 2.5 cm), characterized as spindle cell type, with fewer than 5 mitotic figures per high-power field, considered low risk. Immunohistochemistry revealed positive staining for CD34 and CD117, negative staining for SMA, positive staining for DOG1, and negative staining for S100. Additionally, the expression of ki67 was 3%.
Figure 1: Preoperative radiological examinations. (A) Preoperative CT examination. (B) Preoperative gastroscopy examination. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Surgical Procedure. (A) Administration of appropriate submucosal injection. (B) Stepwise incision of the gastric wall. (C) Exploring the tumor's intra-abdominal location to gain insight into the lesion. (D) Injecting at the tumor base, separating the tumor from its base, ensuring smooth entry to the correct dissection plane. (E) Gently dissecting along the border using an endoscopic cutting tool. (F) Capturing the tumor using a retrieval basket and removing it orally through the gastric incision. (G) Confirmed complete tumor removal and no active bleeding at the surgical site. (H) Suturing the gastric incision using an endoscopic suturing technique. (I) Completely excised tumor extracted through the oral cavity. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Items | Results |
Operation time (min) | 120 |
Surgical blood loss (mL) | 1 |
Surgical fluid infusion volume (mL) | 2000 |
Placement of what type of drainage tube | Gastric tube |
Postop complications | None |
Discharge time | The 6th postoperative day |
Table 1: The data from various aspects related to this surgical case.
Laparoscope | Gastrointestinal Endoscope | |||
Rigid/Flexible | Rigid | Flexible | ||
field of view | relatively wide, with distant, intermediate, and close-up fields of view | Narrow field of view, unable to operate at a distance | ||
move | active movement | passive movement | ||
target localization | Target localization is not easily lost | Prone to getting lost easily due to influence | ||
Instrument insertion and removal method | Multiple puncture sites can be punctured as needed | Only one or two channels/clamps | ||
surgical instruments | Abundant instruments, large operating range | The instruments are relatively limited and the operating range is small | ||
suction device | independent suction device | Sharing the same suction channel with instruments, prone to interference | ||
surgical technique | Can be assisted by assistants, using multiple puncture sites for the entry and exit of various instruments to assist in surgery | Without assistant support, relying on gravity or other special means to expose blind spots |
Table 2: The difference between laparoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy for surgery.
Despite the demonstrated efficacy of targeted agents such as imatinib for treating GISTs1,2, surgical resection remains the primary therapeutic approach for primary GISTs2,9. Recent advancements in endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic techniques combined with the evolution of NOTES principles have generated a spectrum of intracavitary endoscopic surgical techniques7,8. These techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal tumor excavation via tunneling, and endoscopic full-thickness resection of the gastrointestinal tract. Such modalities render it feasible to achieve complete excision of submucosal lesions within the esophagus, stomach, and even the colon, including entities such as GISTs and leiomyomas. Furthermore, these approaches yield a maximized minimally invasive effect while preserving the structural integrity of the gastrointestinal tract.
While the minimally invasive nature of NOTES has gained widespread recognition, it is important to acknowledge the substantial structural and instrumental disparities between gastrointestinal endoscopy and laparoscopy (Table 2). Employing endoscopy for surgical interventions still presents a relatively higher level of procedural complexity than laparoscopic procedures, particularly in regions such as the abdominal cavity, where the spatial volume significantly exceeds that of the gastrointestinal lumen. Consequently, meticulous preoperative preparation is pivotal for successful endoscopic operations. The present case showcased the surgical technique. Primarily, the tumor was on the anterior stomach wall. This location was both the intragastric projection of the tumor and where the stomach endoscope was more likely to perforate the gastric wall, minimizing the risk of being off target. Therefore, the authors used this position as the site of deliberate perforation, traversing the gastric wall to locate the tumor. Subsequently, the tumor boundaries were meticulously dissected using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques.
When only a minute amount of submucosal attachment remained following nearly complete tumor dissection, the authors ensured that the area connected to the tumor was devoid of blood vessels to avert difficulties locating the tumor following complete excision and its potential intracavitary dislodgement. Subsequently, the tumor was entrapped using a helical net basket, pulled through the gastric incision into the stomach, and retrieved from the upper gastrointestinal tract. Following these steps, hemostasis procedures were performed on the incision site. The gastric incision was closed using endoscopic purse-string suturing. A gastric decompression tube was retained to facilitate optimal and rapid incision healing. This measure was taken to prevent gastric distention, and gastric fluids were aspirated to reduce their corrosive impact on the incision site. This sequence of measures collectively enhanced patient recovery. Reviewing the entire process of this surgical case, the success of the procedure can be attributed to several key factors. Firstly, precise localization was achieved by using a gastroscope to accurately identify the tumor's position within the stomach, designating it as the active perforation site to prevent disorientation within the abdominal cavity. Secondly, the proficient use of various endoscopic surgical instruments played a crucial role. Given the limitations of a single endoscopic channel, understanding the characteristics of instruments, such as the hooking and excision knife and precutting knife, was essential for successful tumor dissection. Different instruments were strategically combined to achieve complete tumor removal. Additionally, preoperative and intraoperative assessments focused on determining whether the tumor size allowed for complete extraction through natural cavities, considering the emphasis on tumor integrity in this surgery. Lastly, proficiency in special endoscopic suturing techniques was necessary for the smooth closure of the gastric incision under endoscopy.
However, challenges in this case included ensuring the integrity of the tumor capsule. While preserving the capsule is comparatively easier in laparoscopic or open surgery, the lack of tactile feedback and limited vision in endoscopic procedures, along with the absence of an assisting hand, increased the difficulty in maintaining the capsule's integrity. This necessitated the operator to be proficient in endoscopic surgical techniques and possess experience in endoscopic procedures. Another challenge involved the difficulty in locating the tumor due to the limited endoscopic field of view. To address this, a strategic approach was implemented, involving careful confirmation of the attachment site and the use of a helical net basket to retrieve the tumor through the gastric incision and extract it through the upper digestive tract.
Using gastrointestinal endoscopy for tumor resection has been substantiated as a secure and efficacious approach for GISTs measuring <2 cm in diameter2. GISTs > 5 cm diameter present intermediate or high risk of recurrence; therefore, surgical excision (via open or laparoscopic methods) remains the preferred therapeutic strategy. Robust evidence-based support for the optimal treatment approach for GISTs within the 2-5 cm range is currently lacking10,11,12. A 12-year single-center study conducted at Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, China, indicated that endoscopic surgery might be a suitable option for such GISTs11. The findings suggested that the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic resection performed by experienced endoscopists appear comparable to that of conventional surgical excision13. Intriguingly, the endoscopic resection group exhibited shorter surgical durations and reduced postoperative hospital stays10,14.
In summary, applying endoscopy for intra-abdominal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) resection is a safe and effective NOTES surgical approach. However, this procedure also comes with its limitations, requiring operators to possess advanced skills in handling complex endoscopic surgeries. There are restrictions regarding tumor size, and for larger tumors, an inability to be completely extracted through the digestive tract is considered a contraindication for this surgery. During the operative process, it is crucial to ensure the integrity of the tumor capsule, preventing capsule damage that could lead to the dissemination and metastasis of the tumor.
None.
None.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Disposable Endoscope Injection Needle | Boston Scientific Corporation | ||
Dual knife | Olympus | KD-650L | |
Endoscopic Ligation Device (Nylon Suture) | Leao Company | ||
IT2 knife | Olympus | KD-611L | |
Olympus 290 Host System | Olympus | ||
Olympus Endoscope Dedicated Insufflator | Olympus | ||
Olympus Endoscope Dedicated Water Pump | Olympus | ||
Olympus Therapeutic Gastroscope GIF-Q260J | Olympus | GIF-Q260J | |
Rotatable Reusable Endoscope Metal Clip | Nanjing Micro-Invasive Medical Co., Ltd |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved