Synergistic effect of Codonopsis lanceolata and clip-line traction in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancer

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between the two groups, mean ± SD

Indicators	Clipping wire traction group	Combination group	t/χ2	P value
Gender (male/female)	31/19	34/16	0.396	0.529
Age (years)	65.23 ± 7.66	65.53 ± 5.42	0.224	0.823
BMI	21.47 ± 4.29	21.16 ± 4.33	0.360	0.719
Lesion site			2.763	0.251
Up	11	14
Middle	28	31
Lower	11	5
Lesion morphology			0.462	0.881
Protrusion	13	11
Flat	35	36
Depression	2	3
Depth of the lesion			1.329	0.249
Mucosal layer	45	41
Submucosa	5	9

This table compares baseline patient characteristics between the two groups. Continuous variables (age, body mass index) are presented as mean ± SD and were compared using the independent samples t-test. Categorical variables (gender, lesion site, lesion morphology, lesion depth) are presented as counts and were compared using the χ² test. The results show no statistically significant differences between the groups (all P > 0.05). BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of surgery-related indicators between the two groups, mean ± SD/n (%)

Indicators	Clipping wire traction group	Combination group	t/χ2	P value
Operation time(min)	57.65 ± 12.81	53.39 ± 10.36	1.828	0.071
En bloc resection rate	47 (94.00)	50 (100.00)	3.093	0.079
Curative resection rate	42 (84.00)	46 (92.00)	1.515	0.218

This table compares operative outcomes between the two groups. Continuous variables (operation time) are presented as mean ± SD and were compared using the independent samples t-test. Categorical variables (en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate) are presented as n (%) and were compared using the χ² test. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups (all P > 0.05).

Table 3 Comparison of postoperative recovery indicators between the two groups, mean ± SD

Indicators	Clipping wire traction group	Combination group	t/χ2	P value
Time to first meal	2.31 ± 0.48	1.78 ± 0.39	6.051	< 0.001
Postoperative hospital stays	8.19 ± 1.34	6.42 ± 1.18	6.995	< 0.001

This table compares postoperative recovery metrics between the two groups. Continuous variables (time to first meal, postoperative hospital stay) are presented as mean ± SD and were compared using the independent samples t-test. Statistically significant differences were observed for both indicators (both P < 0.001).

Table 4 Comparison of complication rates between the two groups, n (%)

Indicators	Clipping wire traction group	Combination group	t/χ2	P value
Postoperative bleeding	3 (6.00)	1 (2.00)
Esophageal stenosis	6 (12.00)	3 (6.00)
Infection	3 (6.00)	0 (0.00)
Total	12 (24.00)	4 (8.00)	4.762	0.029

This table compares the incidence of complications between the two groups. Categorical variables (postoperative bleeding, esophageal stenosis, infection, total complication rate) are presented as n (%). The overall complication rate was compared using the χ² test, showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05).

Table 5 Comparison of C-reactive protein levels, peak pain scores, and ulcer healing rates between the two groups, mean ± SD/n (%)

	Clipping wire traction group	Combination group	t/χ2	P value
CRP (mg/L)
Preoperative	3.5 ± 1.2	3.3 ± 1.1	0.873	0.385
Postoperative days 1	36.2 ± 7.5	25.1 ± 5.9	8.229	< 0.001
Postoperative days 3	60.5 ± 11.3	38.5 ± 8.7	10.913	< 0.001
Postoperative days 7	8.9 ± 2.8	5.2 ± 2.1	7.483	< 0.001
Postoperative peak pain (VAS score)	6.0 ± 1.2	5.1 ± 1.2	3.732	< 0.001
4-week ulcer scar healing rate	32 (90.00)	45 (64.00)	9.543	0.002

This table compares serial C-reactive protein levels, peak postoperative pain scores, and ulcer healing outcomes between the two groups. Continuous variables (C-reactive protein at each time point, peak Visual Analogue Scale pain score) are presented as mean ± SD and were compared using the independent samples t-test. The categorical variable (4-week ulcer healing rate) is presented as n (%) and was compared using the χ² test. Statistically significant differences were observed at all postoperative time points for C-reactive protein, for peak pain score, and for ulcer healing rate (all P < 0.05), while no significant difference was found in preoperative C-reactive protein levels (P > 0.05). CRP: C-reactive protein; VAS: Visual Analogue Scale.