Table 3. Comparison between endoscopic and surgical methods for gastric GISTs.

Ref.	Method	N	Mean tumor diameter (mm)	Mean operation time (min)	Complete resection rate (%)	Complication (%)	Follow-up time (months)	Recurrence (%)
Meng et al. (5)	EBL vs. LAP	72 vs. 48	10.68 vs. 12.02	17.11 vs. 90.81	–	1.39 vs. 4.17	6 vs. 6	15.00 vs. 11.76
Meng et al. (41)	ESD vs. LAP	75 vs. 51	14.4 vs. 14.6	63.59 vs. 79.12	–	2.67 vs. 1.96	40.1 vs. 40.9	2.67 vs. 1.96
Wang et al. (55)	EFTR vs. LAP	35 vs. 33	13 vs. 16	91 vs. 155	100 vs. 100	11.4 vs. 13.3	–	0 vs. 0
Wu et al. (71)	EFTR vs. LAP	50 vs. 42	–	85 vs. 88	100.0 vs. 92.9	0 vs. 4.8	–	0 vs. 0
Huang et al. (72)	EFTR vs. LAP	32 vs. 30	–	78.5 vs. 80.9	100.0 vs. 93.3	0 vs. 3.3	–	0 vs. 0
Wang et al. (52)	EFTR vs. LAP	66 vs. 43	15 vs. 11	53.6 vs. 139	98.4 vs. 100.0	24.2 vs. 14.0	–	0 vs. 0
Dong et al. (73)	EFTR vs. MLIGS	10 vs. 8	16.5 vs. 27.5	120 vs. 85	100 vs. 100	10 vs. 0	–	0 vs. 0

GISTs, gastrointestinal stromal tumors; EBL, endoscopic band ligation; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; LAP, laparoscopic surgery; MLIGS, modified laparoscopic intragastric surgery.