BACKGROUND AND AIM: Safety and effectiveness of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) has been reported. The aim of the present study is to carry out a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of HSP and CSP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were reviewed to compare HSP with CSP for resecting small colorectal polyps. Outcomes reviewed include complete resection rate, polyp retrieval, delayed bleeding, perforation and procedure time. Outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel random effect model. RESULTS: Eight studies were reviewed in this meta-analysis, including 1665 patients with 3195 polyps. Complete resection rate using HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.98-1.07, P = 0.31). Polyp retrieval after HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.01, P = 0.60). Delayed bleeding rate after HSP was higher than after CSP, although not significantly (patient basis: RR: 7.53, 95% CI: 0.94-60.24, P = 0.06; polyp basis: RR: 7.35, 95% CI: 0.91-59.33, P = 0.06). Perforation was not reported in all eight studies. Total colonoscopy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 7.13 min, 95% CI: 5.32-8.94, P < 0.001). Specific polypectomy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 30.92 s, 95% CI: 9.15-52.68, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows significantly shorter procedure time using CSP compared with HSP. CSP tends toward less delayed bleeding compared with HSP. We recommend CSP as the standard treatment for resecting small benign colorectal polyps.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Safety and effectiveness of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) has been reported. The aim of the present study is to carry out a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of HSP and CSP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were reviewed to compare HSP with CSP for resecting small colorectal polyps. Outcomes reviewed include complete resection rate, polyp retrieval, delayed bleeding, perforation and procedure time. Outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel random effect model. RESULTS: Eight studies were reviewed in this meta-analysis, including 1665 patients with 3195 polyps. Complete resection rate using HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.98-1.07, P = 0.31). Polyp retrieval after HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.01, P = 0.60). Delayed bleeding rate after HSP was higher than after CSP, although not significantly (patient basis: RR: 7.53, 95% CI: 0.94-60.24, P = 0.06; polyp basis: RR: 7.35, 95% CI: 0.91-59.33, P = 0.06). Perforation was not reported in all eight studies. Total colonoscopy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 7.13 min, 95% CI: 5.32-8.94, P < 0.001). Specific polypectomy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 30.92 s, 95% CI: 9.15-52.68, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows significantly shorter procedure time using CSP compared with HSP. CSP tends toward less delayed bleeding compared with HSP. We recommend CSP as the standard treatment for resecting small benign colorectal polyps.
Authors: Vinay Chandrasekhara; Nikhil A Kumta; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Manoop S Bhutani; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Kumar Krishnan; John T Maple; Joshua Melson; Rahul Pannala; Mansour A Parsi; Amrita Sethi; Guru Trikudanathan; Arvind J Trindade; David R Lichtenstein Journal: VideoGIE Date: 2021-04-02