BACKGROUND: Comparative studies on wound surface treatments after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps have not been reported. We conducted a prospective trial of postoperative hemorrhage prevention measures after EMR of such polyps. METHODS: Of 138 patients (397 polyps) who had undergone EMR, 62 patients (148 polyps) with 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps were enrolled. Using the sealed envelope method, the subjects were randomly assigned to either a snare cauterization (75 polyps) or clip closure group (73 polyps). The primary assessment item was the wound surface treatment time (from immediately after polyp resection to wound surface treatment completion). The secondary assessment items were the incidence of delayed bleeding, perforation incidence 1-7 days after EMR, and difference in medical costs between the groups (University Hospital Medical Information Network: No. 000013473). RESULTS: The time required for wound surface treatment completion was 3.26 ± 1.57 min in the snare cauterization group and 12.7 ± 2.92 min in the clip closure group, thus demonstrating a significant difference (P = 0.0001). Delayed bleeding was observed in two patients in the clip group, but was not observed in the snare cauterization group (P = 0.098). The clip group required the use of 720 clips that cost \523,410, US $5,163.50, or <euro>3,665.5. CONCLUSIONS: After EMR of with 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps, snare cauterization was superior to clip closure in terms of procedure time, and medical costs, and not inferior to clip closure in terms of the preventing effect of delayed bleeding.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Comparative studies on wound surface treatments after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps have not been reported. We conducted a prospective trial of postoperative hemorrhage prevention measures after EMR of such polyps. METHODS: Of 138 patients (397 polyps) who had undergone EMR, 62 patients (148 polyps) with 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps were enrolled. Using the sealed envelope method, the subjects were randomly assigned to either a snare cauterization (75 polyps) or clip closure group (73 polyps). The primary assessment item was the wound surface treatment time (from immediately after polyp resection to wound surface treatment completion). The secondary assessment items were the incidence of delayed bleeding, perforation incidence 1-7 days after EMR, and difference in medical costs between the groups (University Hospital Medical Information Network: No. 000013473). RESULTS: The time required for wound surface treatment completion was 3.26 ± 1.57 min in the snare cauterization group and 12.7 ± 2.92 min in the clip closure group, thus demonstrating a significant difference (P = 0.0001). Delayed bleeding was observed in two patients in the clip group, but was not observed in the snare cauterization group (P = 0.098). The clip group required the use of 720 clips that cost \523,410, US $5,163.50, or <euro>3,665.5. CONCLUSIONS: After EMR of with 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps, snare cauterization was superior to clip closure in terms of procedure time, and medical costs, and not inferior to clip closure in terms of the preventing effect of delayed bleeding.
Authors: Linda K Wanders; James E East; Sanne E Uitentuis; Mariska M G Leeflang; Evelien Dekker Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Michał F Kamiński; Cesare Hassan; Raf Bisschops; Jürgen Pohl; Maria Pellisé; Evelien Dekker; Ana Ignjatovic-Wilson; Arthur Hoffman; Gaius Longcroft-Wheaton; Denis Heresbach; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; James E East Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: A Repici; C Hassan; E Vitetta; E Ferrara; G Manes; G Gullotti; A Princiotta; P Dulbecco; N Gaffuri; E Bettoni; N Pagano; G Rando; G Strangio; A Carlino; F Romeo; D de Paula Pessoa Ferreira; A Zullo; L Ridola; A Malesci Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Sidney J Winawer; Michael J O'Brien; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Benjamin F Hankey; Weiji Shi; John H Bond; Melvin Schapiro; Joel F Panish; Edward T Stewart; Jerome D Waye Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fares Ayoub; Donevan R Westerveld; Justin J Forde; Christopher E Forsmark; Peter V Draganov; Dennis Yang Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Nauzer Forbes; Levi Frehlich; Matthew T James; Robert J Hilsden; Gilaad G Kaplan; Todd A Wilson; Diane L Lorenzetti; David J Tate; Michael J Bourke; Steven J Heitman Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2018-07-20
Authors: Karen Chang; Brian S Lee; Timnit Tekeste; Andrew Nguyen; Mopelola Adeyemo; Agathon Girgis; Karl K Kwok; H Michael Crowson; Alicia O Burris; Rajeev Attam; Charles T Chaya; Theodore E Durbin; Andrew Q Giap; Gordon C Hunt; John Iskander; Kevin T Kao; Brian S Lim Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 3.067