AIM: To compare previously reported randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of cold and hot polypectomy, we systematically reviewed and clarify the utility of cold polypectomy over hot with respect to efficacy and adverse events. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the predominance of cold and hot polypectomy for removing colon polyps. Published articles and abstracts from worldwide conferences were searched using the keywords "cold polypectomy". RCTs that compared either or both the effects or adverse events of cold polypectomy with those of hot polypectomy were collected. The patients' demographics, endoscopic procedures, No. of examined lesions, lesion size, macroscopic and histologic findings, rates of incomplete resection, bleeding amount, perforation, and length of procedure were extracted from each study. A forest plot analysis was used to verify the relative strength of the effects and adverse events of each procedure. A funnel plot was generated to assess the possibility of publication bias. RESULTS: Ultimately, six RCTs were selected. No significant differences were noted in the average lesion size (less than 10 mm) between the cold and hot polypectomy groups in each study. Further, the rates of complete resection and adverse events, including delayed bleeding, did not differ markedly between cold and hot polypectomy. The average procedural time in the cold polypectomy group was significantly shorter than in the hot polypectomy group. CONCLUSION: Cold polypectomy is a time-saving procedure for removing small polyps with markedly similar curability and safety to hot polypectomy.
AIM: To compare previously reported randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of cold and hot polypectomy, we systematically reviewed and clarify the utility of cold polypectomy over hot with respect to efficacy and adverse events. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the predominance of cold and hot polypectomy for removing colon polyps. Published articles and abstracts from worldwide conferences were searched using the keywords "cold polypectomy". RCTs that compared either or both the effects or adverse events of cold polypectomy with those of hot polypectomy were collected. The patients' demographics, endoscopic procedures, No. of examined lesions, lesion size, macroscopic and histologic findings, rates of incomplete resection, bleeding amount, perforation, and length of procedure were extracted from each study. A forest plot analysis was used to verify the relative strength of the effects and adverse events of each procedure. A funnel plot was generated to assess the possibility of publication bias. RESULTS: Ultimately, six RCTs were selected. No significant differences were noted in the average lesion size (less than 10 mm) between the cold and hot polypectomy groups in each study. Further, the rates of complete resection and adverse events, including delayed bleeding, did not differ markedly between cold and hot polypectomy. The average procedural time in the cold polypectomy group was significantly shorter than in the hot polypectomy group. CONCLUSION: Cold polypectomy is a time-saving procedure for removing small polyps with markedly similar curability and safety to hot polypectomy.
Authors: Fatih Aslan; Mehmet Camcı; Emrah Alper; Zehra Akpınar; Mahmut Arabul; Mustafa Celik; Belkıs Unsal Journal: Turk J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Peter V Draganov; Myron N Chang; Ahmad Alkhasawneh; Lisa R Dixon; John Lieb; Baharak Moshiree; Steven Polyak; Shahnaz Sultan; Dennis Collins; Amitabh Suman; John F Valentine; Mihir S Wagh; Samir L Habashi; Chris E Forsmark Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245