4.7 Article

Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 81, Issue 3, Pages 741-747

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.048

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Global Research and Development Center through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning [NRF-2011-0031644]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The optimal technique for removal of diminutive or small colorectal polyps is debatable. Objective: To compare the complete resection rates of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for the removal of adenomatous polyps <= 7 mm. Design: Prospective randomized controlled study. Setting: A university hospital. Patients: A total of 139 patients who were found to have >= 1 colorectal adenomatous polyps <= 7 mm. Interventions: Polyps were randomized to be treated with either CSP or CFP. After the initial polypectomy, additional EMR was performed at the polypectomy site to assess the presence of residual polyp tissue. Main Outcome Measurements: Absence of residual polyp tissue in the EMR specimen of the polypectomy site was defined as complete resection. Results: Among a total of 145 polyps, 128 (88.3%) were adenomatous polyps. The overall complete resection rate for adenomatous polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group compared with the CFP group (57/59, 96.6% vs 57/69, 82.6%; P = 011). Although the complete resection rates for adenomatous polyps <= 4 mm were not different (27/27, 100% vs 31/32, 96.9%; P = 1.000), the complete resection rates for adenomatous polyps sized 5 to 7 mm was significantly higher in the CSP group compared with the CFP group (30/32, 93.8% vs 26/37, 70.3%; P =.013). Limitations: Single-center study. Conclusion: CSP is recommended for the complete resection of colorectal adenomatous polyps <= 7 mm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available