Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Apr 27, 2025; 17(4): 103700
Published online Apr 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i4.103700
Published online Apr 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i4.103700
Table 1 Comparative analysis of baseline data
Indicators | Control group (n = 60) | Research group (n = 60) | t value | P value |
Gender, n (%) | 0.352 | 0.553 | ||
Male | 43 (71.67) | 40 (66.67) | ||
Female | 17 (28.33) | 20 (33.33) | ||
Age (years) | 70.20 ± 6.09 | 68.20 ± 7.00 | 1.670 | 0.098 |
Disease course (years) | 2.70 ± 0.67 | 2.58 ± 0.67 | 0.981 | 0.329 |
Lesion site, n (%) | 0.357 | 0.836 | ||
Upper esophageal segment | 20 (33.33) | 23 (38.33) | ||
Middle esophageal segment | 23 (38.33) | 22 (36.67) | ||
Lower esophageal segment | 17 (28.33) | 15 (25.00) | ||
Family medical history, n (%) | 0.745 | 0.388 | ||
Without | 48 (80.00) | 44 (73.33) | ||
With | 12 (20.00) | 16 (26.67) |
Table 2 Comparative analysis of therapeutic efficacy
Indicators | Control group (n = 60) | Research group (n = 60) | t value | P value |
Dissection area (cm2) | 6.76 ± 5.95 | 10.17 ± 4.64 | 3.501 | < 0.001 |
Resection rate per unit time (mm2/min) | 3.03 ± 3.20 | 9.65 ± 6.54 | 7.043 | < 0.001 |
Table 3 Comparative analysis of complications, n (%)
Indicators | Control group (n = 60) | Research group (n = 60) | χ2 value | P value |
Delayed bleeding | 3 (5.00) | 2 (3.33) | 0.209 | 0.648 |
Wound infection | 9 (15.00) | 0 (0.00) | 9.730 | 0.002 |
Esophageal reflux | 19 (31.67) | 4 (6.67) | 12.102 | < 0.001 |
Postoperative esophageal stenosis | 9 (15.00) | 4 (6.67) | 2.157 | 0.142 |
Total | 40 (66.67) | 10 (16.67) | 30.857 | < 0.001 |
Table 4 Comparative analysis of surgery-related indexes
Indicators | Control group (n = 60) | Research group (n = 60) | t value | P value |
Bleeding volume (mL) | 151.83 ± 126.35 | 31.75 ± 23.68 | 7.236 | < 0.001 |
Operation duration (hours) | 4.05 ± 1.14 | 2.15 ± 1.02 | 9.621 | < 0.001 |
Hospital length of stay (days) | 21.70 ± 6.52 | 9.63 ± 2.31 | 13.516 | < 0.001 |
Table 5 Comparative analysis of serum tumor markers
Indicators | Control group (n = 60) | Research group (n = 60) | t value | P value |
CEA (ng/mL) | ||||
Before surgery | 12.65 ± 3.33 | 12.86 ± 3.66 | 0.329 | 0.743 |
After surgery | 3.19 ± 2.15a | 2.35 ± 1.60a | 2.428 | 0.017 |
CA724 (U/mL) | ||||
Before surgery | 27.53 ± 5.35 | 28.27 ± 5.40 | 0.754 | 0.452 |
After surgery | 4.06 ± 3.70a | 2.77 ± 1.93a | 2.394 | 0.018 |
TSGF (U/mL) | ||||
Before surgery | 96.50 ± 20.80 | 97.37 ± 22.00 | 0.223 | 0.824 |
After surgery | 49.83 ± 13.26a | 39.22 ± 14.18a | 4.233 | < 0.001 |
- Citation: Yuan XC, Jia P, Tian T, Zhu J, Zhang XY. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal precancerous lesions and early esophageal carcinoma: Analysis of efficacy and serum tumor markers. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(4): 103700
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i4/103700.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i4.103700