Literature DB >> 26358331

A prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polyps.

Soo-kyung Park1, Bong Min Ko2, Jae Pil Han2, Su Jin Hong2, Moon Sung Lee2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A previous study reported that cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was superior to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm) when the techniques were assessed for completeness of resection. However, completeness is expected to be greater with CFP when strict investigation of the remnant polyp is performed. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of CFP with narrow-band imaging (NBI) evaluation of polypectomy sites for removal of DCPs, compared with CSP.
METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial at a tertiary-care referral hospital. Of the 380 patients screened, 146 patients with 231 DCPs were enrolled. CFP was used to resect DCPs until no remnant polyp was visible by NBI endoscopy. The primary noninferiority endpoint was histologic eradication of polyps, with a noninferiority margin of -10%.
RESULTS: A size of >3 mm was seen in 129 polyps (55.8%). The overall rates of histologic eradication were 90.5% in the CFP group and 93.0% in the CSP group (difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.67 to 4.62). However, when confined to the polyps >3 mm, the histologic eradication rate was 86.8% and 93.4% (95% CI, -17.2 to 3.6), respectively. Polyp size, histology, location, and time taken for polypectomy did not differ between the groups. The failure rate of tissue retrieval was higher in the CSP than in the CFP group (7.8% vs 0.0%, respectively; P =.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, >90% of all DCPs were completely resected by using CFP with NBI evaluation of polypectomy sites, showing noninferiority compared with CSP. However, in polyps measuring >3 mm, CFP failed to show noninferiority versus CSP. CFP appears to be the proper method for resection of DCPs 1 to 3 mm in size if no remnant polyp is visible by NBI endoscopy, but CFP is likely to be insufficient for larger polyps. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02201147.).
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26358331     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  16 in total

1.  The Impact on Endoscopic Resource Utilization After a Targeted Intervention for Cost-Minimization of EGD and Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Sindhu R Kaitha; George Salem; Yan D Zhao; Mohammad F Madhoun; Allshine Chen; William M Tierney
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  A prospective randomized study comparing jumbo biopsy forceps to cold snare for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Shireena Desai; Samir Gupta; Nedret Copur-Dahi; Mary L Krinsky
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yoon Suk Jung; Chan Hyuk Park; Eunwoo Nam; Chang Soo Eun; Dong Il Park; Dong Soo Han
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Clinical guidance on endoscopic management of colonic polyps in Singapore.

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

5.  Prevalence of Forceps Polypectomy of Nondiminutive Polyps Is Substantial But Modifiable.

Authors:  David I Fudman; Amit G Singal; Mark G Cooper; MinJae Lee; Caitlin C Murphy
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 13.576

6.  Adherence to European Polypectomy Guidelines: Retrospective Experience from a Tertiary Irish Hospital.

Authors:  Vikrant Parihar; Julia Sopheno-Falco; Pardeep Maheshwari; Neil O'Moran; Vivien Graziadei; Aishling O'Grady Walshe; Orla O'Dwyer; Lakshman Kumar; Sean Fennessy; Niall Breslin; Barbara M Ryan; Deirdre McNamara
Journal:  Gastrointest Tumors       Date:  2018-11-22

7.  A prospective comparison of cold snare polypectomy using traditional or dedicated cold snares for the resection of small sessile colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Jeremy P Dwyer; Jonathan Y C Tan; Paul Urquhart; Robyn Secomb; Catherine Bunn; John Reynolds; Richard La Nauze; William Kemp; Stuart Roberts; Gregor Brown
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2017-10-27

Review 8.  Resection of Diminutive and Small Colorectal Polyps: What Is the Optimal Technique?

Authors:  Jun Lee
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2016-07-22

9.  High complete resection rate for pre-lift and cold biopsy of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Sam A O'Connor; Trevor N Brooklyn; Paul D Dunckley; Roland M Valori; Ruth Carr; Chris Foy; Thusitha Somarathna; Lukasz A Adamczyk; Neil A Shepherd; John T Anderson
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2018-02-01

10.  Cold snare polypectomy reduced delayed postpolypectomy bleeding compared with conventional hot polypectomy: a propensity score-matching analysis.

Authors:  Takeshi Yamashina; Manabu Fukuhara; Takanori Maruo; Gensho Tanke; Saiko Marui; Ryota Sada; Mio Taki; Yoshiaki Ohara; Azusa Sakamoto; Shinichiro Henmi; Yugo Sawai; Sumio Saito; Norihiro Nishijima; Akihiro Nasu; Hideyuki Komekado; Akira Sekikawa; Masanori Asada; Takehiko Tumura; Ryuichi Kita; Toru Kimura; Yukio Osaki
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2017-06-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.