Literature DB >> 28647136

Polypectomy for complete endoscopic resection of small colorectal polyps.

Qisheng Zhang1, Peng Gao1, Bin Han1, Jianhua Xu1, Yucui Shen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small colorectal polyps are encountered frequently and may be incompletely removed during colonoscopy. The optimal technique for removal of small colorectal polyps is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the incomplete resection rate (IRR) by using EMR or cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small adenomatous polyps.
METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled study from a tertiary-care referral center. A total of 358 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria (polyp sized 6-9 mm) were randomized to the EMR (n =179) and CSP (n =179) groups, and their polyps were treated with conventional EMR or CSP, respectively. After polypectomy, an additional 5 forceps biopsies were performed at the base and margins of polypectomy sites to assess the presence of residual polyp tissue. The EMR and CSP samples were compared to assess the IRR.
RESULTS: Among a total of 525 polyps, 415 (79.0%) were adenomatous polyps, and 41 (16.4%) were advanced adenomas. The overall IRR for adenomatous polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group compared with the EMR group (18/212, 8.5% vs 3/203, 1.5%; P = .001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the CSP procedure was a stronger risk factor for the IRR (odds ratio [OR] 6.924; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.098-24.393; P = .003). In addition, piecemeal resection was the most important risk factor for the IRR (OR 28.696; 95% CI, 3.620-227.497; P = .001). The mean procedure time for polypectomy was not significantly different between the EMR and CSP groups (5.5 ± 2.7 vs 4.7 ± 3.4 minutes; P = .410). None of these patients presented with delayed bleeding. There were no severe adverse events related to the biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: EMR was significantly superior to CSP for achieving complete endoscopic resection of small colorectal polyps. Patients with piecemeal resection of polyps had a higher risk for incomplete resection. (Clinical trial registration number: Hongwei-1102-12.).
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28647136     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.010

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


  13 in total

1.  Resection depth and layer of cold snare polypectomy versus endoscopic mucosal resection.

Authors:  Akihiro Ito; Tomoaki Suga; Hiroyoshi Ota; Nobuyuki Tateiwa; Akihiro Matsumoto; Eiji Tanaka
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 7.527

2.  Randomized controlled trial investigating use of submucosal injection of EverLift™ in rates of complete resection of non-pedunculated 4-9 mm polyps.

Authors:  Mike T Wei; Christine Y Louie; Yu Chen; Jennifer Y Pan; Susan Y Quan; Robert Wong; Ryanne Brown; Melissa Clark; Kristin Jensen; Hubert Lau; Shai Friedland
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Effect of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Qing-Qing Meng; Min Rao; Pu-Jun Gao
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 1.534

4.  Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video).

Authors:  Andrew W Yen; Joseph W Leung; Machelle D Wilson; Felix W Leung
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Postpolypectomy Bleeding Prevention and More Complete Precancerous Colon Polyp Removal With Endoscopic Mucosal Stripping (EMS).

Authors:  Zongyu John Chen; Kenneth P Batts
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-11-08

6.  Hot snare vs. cold snare polypectomy for endoscopic removal of 4 - 10 mm colorectal polyps during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

Authors:  Ramprasad Jegadeesan; Muhammad Aziz; Madhav Desai; Tharani Sundararajan; Venkata Subhash Gorrepati; Viveksandeep Thogulva Chandrasekar; Mahendran Jayaraj; Pratiksha Singh; Ahmed Saeed; Tarun Rai; Abhishek Choudhary; Alessandro Repici; Cesare Hassan; Lorenzo Fuccio; Prateek Sharma
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-05-08

7.  Indications for Cold Polypectomy Stratified by the Colorectal Polyp Size: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Takuji Kawamura; Yoji Takeuchi; Isao Yokota; Nobumasa Takagaki
Journal:  J Anus Rectum Colon       Date:  2020-04-28

8.  Endoscopic resection is more effective than biopsy or EUS to detect residual rectal neuroendocrine tumor.

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

Review 9.  Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence.

Authors:  Andrew Chan; Hamish Philpott; Amanda H Lim; Minnie Au; Derrick Tee; Damian Harding; Mohamed Asif Chinnaratha; Biju George; Rajvinder Singh
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-11-16

10.  Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial : (UEMR vs. CEMR for small size non-pedunculated colorectal polyps).

Authors:  Zhixin Zhang; Yonghong Xia; Hongyao Cui; Xin Yuan; Chunnian Wang; Jiarong Xie; Yarong Tong; Weihong Wang; Lei Xu
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.