Objective To investigate the short‑term efficacy of totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus direct TLDG for early gastric cancer.

Methods The propensity score matching and retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 623 patients with early gastric cancer who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from March 2014 to December 2019 were collected. There were 405 males and 218 females, aged from 26 to 86 years, with a median age of 62 years. Of 623 patients, 25 cases undergoing TLDG after ESD were divided into ESD+TLDG group and 598 cases undergoing TLDG directly were divided into TLDG group. Observation indicators: (1) the propensity score matching conditions and comparison of general data between the two groups after propensity score matching; (2) intraoperative and postoperative situations of TLDG; (3) stratification analysis of the ESD+TLDG group. The propensity score matching was conducted by 1∶2 matching using the nearest neighbor method. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD, and comparison between groups was done using the t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M (range) and comparison between groups was done using the Mann‑Whitney U test. Count data were represented as absolute numbers, and comparison between groups was analyzed using the chi‑square test or Fisher exact probability. Comparison of ordinal data between groups was analyzed using the Mann‑Whitney U test.

Results (1) The propensity score matching conditions and comparison of general data between the two groups after propensity score matching: 75 of 623 patients had successful matching, including 25 in the ESD+TLDG group and 50 in the TLDG group. Before propensity score matching, the body mass index (BMI), cases with tumor diameter ≤20 mm, 21 to 30 mm or>30 mm, cases with tumor classified as stage Ⅰ, stage Ⅱ or stage Ⅲ of clinical staging were (22.3±3.6)kg/m², 16, 6, 3, 24, 1, 0 of the ESD+TLDG group, respectively, versus (24.3±2.7)kg/m², 238, 125, 235, 312, 126, 160 of the TLDG group, showing significant differences in the above indicators between the two groups (t=2.744, Z=‒2.834, ‒4.209, P<0.05). After propensity score matching, the BMI, cases with tumor diameter ≤20 mm, 21 to 30 mm or >30 mm, cases with tumor classified as stage Ⅰ or stage Ⅱ of clinical staging were (22.3±3.6)kg/m², 16, 6, 3, 24, 1 of the ESD+TLDG group, versus (23.6±2.9)kg/m², 29, 12, 9, 48, 2 of the TLDG group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (t=1.542, Z=‒0.597, 0.000, P>0.05). (2) Intraoperative and postoperative situations of TLDG: after propensity score matching, the operation time and time to postoperative drainage tube removal were 180 minutes(range, 124 to 289 minutes) and 6 days(range, 4 to 13 days) of the ESD+TLDG group,respectively,versus 170 minutes(range, 106 to 250 minutes) and 6 days (range, 4 to 9 days) of the TLDG group, showing significant differences between the two groups (Z=-2.396, -3.039, P<0.05). Cases with the volume of intraoperative blood loss <50 mL, 50 to 100 mL or >100 mL, the number of lymph node dissected, duration of postoperative hospital stay, cases with perioperative complications as incision fat liquefaction, delayed gastric emptying, anastomotic bleeding or pulmonary infection were 7, 9, 9,34(range, 16 to 58), 8 days(range, 6 to 31 days), 1, 1, 0, 0 of the ESD+TLDG group,respectively,versus 18, 26, 6, 39 (range, 22 to 68), 8 days (range, 6 to 29 days), 0, 0, 1, 1 of the TLDG group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (Z=-1.703, -1.958, -1.139, χ²=0.033, P>0.05). Cases with anastomotic bleeding were recovered after hemostasis under endoscopy and cases with other perioperative complications were recovered after conservative treatment. (3) Stratification analysis of the ESD+TLDG group. ① For 5 cases undergoing TLDG ≤14 days after ESD and 20 cases undergoing TLDG >14 days after ESD, the operation time of TLDG, cases with the volume of intraoperative blood loss <50 mL, 50 to 100 mL or >100 mL during TLDG, the number of lymph node dissected, time to postoperative drainage tube removal, duration of postoperative hospital stay, cases with perioperative complications were 200 minutes(range, 170 to 289 minutes), 0, 3, 2, 36(range, 9 to 57), 7 days(range, 5 to 9 days), 8 days(range, 7 to 9 days), 1 and 180 minutes (range, 124 to 253 minutes), 8, 6, 6, 34(range, 8 to 78), 6 days(range, 4 to 13 days), 8 days(range, 6 to 31 days), 1, respectively, showing no significant difference in the operation time of TLDG, volume of intraoperative blood loss during TLDG, the number of lymph node dissected, time to postoperative tube removal and duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (Z=‒1.536, ‒1.993, ‒0.238, ‒0.932, ‒0.589, P>0.05), and no significant difference in cases with perioperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). ② For 13 cases undergoing TLDG ≤21 days after ESD and cases undergoing TLDG >21 days after ESD, the operation time of TLDG, cases with the volume of intraoperative blood loss as <50 mL, 50 to 100 mL or >100 mL during TLDG, the number of lymph node dissected, time to postoperative drainage tube removal, duration of postoperative hospital stay, cases with perioperative complications were 200 minutes(range, 145 to 289 minutes), 2, 6, 5, 34(range, 8 to 57), 6 days(range, 4 to 11 days), 8 days(range, 6 to 11 days), 1 and 179 minutes(range, 124 to 240 minutes), 6, 3, 3, 34(range, 16 to 78), 6 days(range, 5 to 13 days), 8 days(range, 6 to 31 days), 1, respectively, showing a significant difference in the operation time of TLDG between the two groups (Z=‒2.241, P<0.05), while showing no significant difference in the volume of intraoperative blood loss during TLDG, the number of lymph node dissected, time to postoperative drainage tube removal, duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (Z=‒1.471, ‒0.163, ‒0.084, ‒0.194, P>0.05) and no significant difference in cases with perioperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). ③ For 15 cases undergoing TLDG ≤28 days after ESD and 10 cases undergoing TLDG >28 days after ESD, the operation time of TLDG, cases with the volume of intraoperative blood loss <50 mL, 50 to 100 mL or >100 mL during TLDG, the number of lymph node dissected, time to postoperative drainage tube removal, duration of postoperative hospital stay, cases with perioperative complications were 190 minutes (range, 145 to 289 minutes), 2, 7, 6, 33(range, 8 to 57), 6 days(range, 4 to 11 days), 8 days(range, 6 to 31 days), 1 and 179 minutes(range, 124 to 240 minutes), 6, 2, 2, 37(range, 16 to 78), 6 days (range, 5 to 13 days), 8 days(range, 6 to 14 days), 1, respectively, showing no significant difference in the operation time of TLDG, volume of intraoperative blood loss during TLDG, the number of lymph node dissected, time to postoperative tube removal and duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (Z=‒1.619, ‒2.000, ‒0.667, ‒0.370, ‒0.057, P>0.05), and no significant difference in cases with perioperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusions Compared with cases undergoing TLDG directly, the operation time to TLDG and time to drainage tube removal after TLDG for cases undergoing ESD+TLDG are prolonged, but there is no difference in the short‑term efficacy. For cases undergoing TLDG ≤21 days after ESD and cases undergoing TLDG >21 days after ESD, there is a significant difference in the operation time of TLDG.