Skip to main content

Table 1 Patient baseline characteristics before and after propensity score matching

From: Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: a retrospective case–control study

Variables

Overall cohort

Matched cohort

C-ESD group (n = 81)

DCRB-ESD group (n = 46)

p value

C-ESD group (n = 35)

DCRB-ESD group (n = 35)

p value

Age

60.33 ± 12.60

60.65 ± 12.82

0.89

58.09 ± 18.09

59.46 ± 12.56

0.63

Sex (male/female)

  

0.00

  

1.0

Male

50

41

 

30

30

 

Female

31

5

 

5

5

 

Location of lesions

  

0.07

  

0.80

Rectal sigmoid junction

6

1

 

2

1

 

Sigmoid colon

23

3

 

4

3

 

Descending-sigmoid junction

7

4

 

1

4

 

Descending colon

6

6

 

4

6

 

Splenic flexure

1

2

 

1

1

 

Transverse colon

11

6

 

8

5

 

Hepatic flexure

6

6

 

3

2

 

Ascending colon

14

9

 

7

5

 

Cecum

7

9

 

5

8

 

Unfavorable location

36

24

0.30

17

17

0.78

Lesion size

  

0.98

  

0.97

< 30 mm

55

32

 

22

23

 

30–50 mm

24

13

 

12

11

 

> 50 mm

2

1

 

1

1

 

Lesion area (mm2) [Median, IQR]

500, 490.0

420, 480.0

0.63

500,675

360,525

0.30

Lesion circumference ratio

  

0.92

  

1.0

< 2/3

79

45

 

34

34

 

> 2/3

2

1

 

1

1

 

LST classification

  

0.00

  

0.81

LST-G

62

19

 

19

18

 

LST-NG

19

27

 

16

17

 

Cases of each CS-CRESD score

  

0.14

  

0.99

0

22

3

 

3

3

 

1

23

18

 

14

15

 

2

23

15

 

12

12

 

3

10

7

 

4

3

 

4

2

2

 

1

1

 

5

1

1

 

1

1