Table 1.

Summary of studies reporting post-endoscopic full-thickness resection defect closure by the use of endoclips

Ref.	Study design	Lesions, n	Mean tumor size (range), cm	Site (cardia/antrum/ body/fundus)	R0	Surgical conversion	Suture technique	Suture technical success	Mean operation time (range), min	Mean suture time (range), min	Major adverse events
Zhou et al[4], 2011	R	26	2.8 ± 1.3 (1.2-4.5)	0/0/14/12	26	0	Clips +/- omental- patch	26	105 (60-145)	-	0
Huang et al[7], 2014	R	35	2.8 (2.0-4.5)	0/0/21/14	35	0	Clips +/- omental- patch	35	90 (60-155)	-	0
Dong et al[12], 2014	R	10	1.65 ± 0.59 (0.80-2.50)	1/1/1/7	10	0	Clips	10	120 (60-180)	-	Peritonitis and abdominal abscess (n = 1)
Feng et al[8], 2014	R	48	1.59 ± 1.01 (0.50-4.80)	0/1/7/40	48	0	Clips	48	59.7 (30-270)	-	0
Wu et al[9], 2015	R	50	3.40 ± 0.83 (2.50-5.00)	0/13/23/14	50	0	Clips +/- omental- patch	50	85 (55-155)	-	0
Tang et al[15], 2016	R	6	-	0/1/2/3	-	0	CFCM	6	-	14.83 ± 1.94 (-)	0
Lu et al[10], 2016	R	62	2.23 ± 1.80 (0.60-6.00)	0/0/29/33	61	0	Clips	62	NA (n = 30): 85 (40-180); TWC (n = 21): 45 (25-90); LA (n = 11): 40 (30-75)	-	0
Tan et al[13], 2017	R	32	1.54 ± 0.66 (-)	0/0/7/25	-	1	Clips	62	69.1 ± 27.0 (-)	6.3 ± 1.6 (-)	Delayed bleeding (n = 1)
Abe et al[11], 2018	R	14	-	-	14	3	Clips	11	-	-	0
Zhao et al[14], 2019	R	85	1.60 ± 0.88 (-)	6/4/20/55	81	0	Clips	85	-	-	Abdominal infection (n = 1)

R: Retrospective; CFCM: Clips assisted with foreign body forceps clip method.