Literature DB >> 18185937

Retrieval of colorectal polyps following snare polypectomy: Experience of the multiple-suction technique in 602 cases.

Feng Ye1, Yanxia Feng, Jianjiang Lin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Retrieving colorectal polyp after endoscopic snare polypectomy is time consuming and possibly incurs a failure. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the multiple-suction (M-S) technique for retrieving a variety of polyps.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred and nine cases received endoscopic snare polypectomy from January 2003 to January 2007 were reviewed. The resected polyps were retrieved by M-S technique, in which suction regarded as the leading technique, was taken in combination with channel occlusion, trap, snare, and grasping forcep. Time of cecal intubation and of polypectomy, total examination time, shape, size, location, and number of polyp(s) were recorded. Retrieval time and polyp lost rate were also noted.
RESULTS: A total of 602 polyps more than 3 mm in diameter underwent snare polypectomy. There were 96.7% (582/602) of polyps retrieved by the M-S technique. The mean retrieval time was 1.5 +/- 0.6 min. Time of polypectomy, retrieval time, and total examination time were significantly positive correlative with the number of polyps (P < 0.05). In a univariate analysis, longer retrieval time was significantly associated with larger polyps, more distant polyps from the anus, and a greater number of polyps, while higher polyp lost rate was significantly associated with sessile polyp, smaller polyps, and a greater number of polyps. In a multivariate analysis, retrieval time level (< or = 2.0 or >2.0 min) was linked to the number of polyps.
CONCLUSIONS: The M-S technique is proved to be reliable when used in the majority cases of colorectal polyp retrieval. In retrieving too many polyps, the M-S technique is time consuming, and hence, additional methods should be applied to improve its retrieval effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18185937     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-007-0429-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  20 in total

1.  ASGE technology status evaluation report. Endoscopic retrieval devices. February 1999. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors:  D B Nelson; J J Bosco; W D Curtis; D O Faigel; P B Kelsey; J W Leung; M R Mills; P Smith; P R Tarnasky; J VanDam; W Y Wassef
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Revised technique for retrieving small polyps from the colon and rectum after snare polypectomy.

Authors:  D D Massick; K S Khanduja
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  The channel occlusion technique: a novel method of retrieving polyps following snare resection.

Authors:  W D Chey
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence.

Authors:  F Citarda; G Tomaselli; R Capocaccia; S Barcherini; M Crespi
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 5.  Management of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  A J Markowitz; S J Winawer
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  The lost polyp: a guide to retrieval during colonoscopy.

Authors:  J D Waye; B S Lewis; M A Atchison; M Talbott
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 7.  Colon polyps and cancer.

Authors:  J H Bond
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Polyp retrieval after colonoscopic polypectomy: use of the Roth Retrieval Net.

Authors:  K Miller; J D Waye
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Screening colonoscopy in 40- to 50-year-old first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer is efficient: a controlled multicentre study.

Authors:  Markus Menges; Johannes Fischinger; Barbara Gärtner; Thomas Georg; Dietrich Woerdehoff; Matthias Maier; Matthias Harloff; Christa Stegmaier; Jochen Raedle; Martin Zeitz
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Endoscopic snare resection of large colonic polyps: how far can we go?

Authors:  N Stergiou; A Riphaus; P Lange; D Menke; F Köckerling; T Wehrmann
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2002-11-16       Impact factor: 2.571

View more
  2 in total

1.  Risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Carlos Fernandes; Rolando Pinho; Iolanda Ribeiro; Joana Silva; Ana Ponte; João Carvalho
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 2.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 4.623

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.