BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The monopolar hot biopsy technique is a widespread method of removing and cauterizing small colonic polyps. Due to the insulated cups of the biopsy forceps, it also allows adequate histological interpretation of the resected specimen. In our experience, polyps removed using the monopolar hot biopsy technique have been less histologically interpretable in comparison with polyps removed using cold biopsy forceps. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the diagnostic quality of polyps obtained using the hot biopsy and cold biopsy techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy with removal of polyps using either hot biopsy or cold biopsy techniques. One experienced endoscopist using the same techniques carried out the biopsies. An experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, blinded to the technique used, evaluated the specimens for diameter, artifacts, cautery damage, tissue fragmentation, and general histological and diagnostic quality. Statistical analysis was carried out using the chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Forty-three consecutive patients (84 % men; mean age 63.8 +/- 15 years) underwent 88 biopsies (45 hot biopsies and 43 cold biopsies). There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups with regard to demographic data, indications for colonoscopy, endoscopic findings, or polyp size. Cautery damage, architectural distortion, and tissue fragmentation occurred more frequently in polyps resected using the hot biopsy technique ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the specimens removed by cold biopsy was generally better than when using hot biopsy technique. Histological evaluation is more difficult in polyps resected with the hot biopsy technique in comparison with the cold biopsy technique. When the nature of polyps affects the patient's management, a biopsy may be obtained before polyp coagulation.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The monopolar hot biopsy technique is a widespread method of removing and cauterizing small colonic polyps. Due to the insulated cups of the biopsy forceps, it also allows adequate histological interpretation of the resected specimen. In our experience, polyps removed using the monopolar hot biopsy technique have been less histologically interpretable in comparison with polyps removed using cold biopsy forceps. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the diagnostic quality of polyps obtained using the hot biopsy and cold biopsy techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy with removal of polyps using either hot biopsy or cold biopsy techniques. One experienced endoscopist using the same techniques carried out the biopsies. An experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, blinded to the technique used, evaluated the specimens for diameter, artifacts, cautery damage, tissue fragmentation, and general histological and diagnostic quality. Statistical analysis was carried out using the chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Forty-three consecutive patients (84 % men; mean age 63.8 +/- 15 years) underwent 88 biopsies (45 hot biopsies and 43 cold biopsies). There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups with regard to demographic data, indications for colonoscopy, endoscopic findings, or polyp size. Cautery damage, architectural distortion, and tissue fragmentation occurred more frequently in polyps resected using the hot biopsy technique ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the specimens removed by cold biopsy was generally better than when using hot biopsy technique. Histological evaluation is more difficult in polyps resected with the hot biopsy technique in comparison with the cold biopsy technique. When the nature of polyps affects the patient's management, a biopsy may be obtained before polyp coagulation.
Authors: Tiing Leong Ang; Jit Fong Lim; Tju Siang Chua; Kok Yang Tan; James Weiquan Li; Chern Hao Chong; Kok Ann Gwee; Vikneswaran S/O Namasivayam; Charles Kien Fong Vu; Christopher Jen Lock Khor; Lai Mun Wang; Khay Guan Yeoh Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 3.331
Authors: Fatih Aslan; Cem Cekiç; Mehmet Camci; Emrah Alper; Nese Ekinci; Zehra Akpinar; Serkan Alpek; Mahmut Arabul; Belkis Unsal Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Matthew W Stier; Christopher G Chapman; Steven Shamah; Kianoush Donboli; Lindsay Yassan; Irving Waxman; Uzma D Siddiqui Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-01-01