4.6 Article

Removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: A prospective randomized clinical trial between cold snare polypectomy and hot forceps biopsy

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 328-335

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i2.328

关键词

Cold snare polypectomy; Colonoscopy; Polypectomy; Colorectal diminutive polyps; Hot forceps biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM To compare the efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot forceps biopsy (HFB) for diminutive colorectal polyps. METHODS This prospective, randomized single-center clinical trial included consecutive patients >= 20 years of age with diminutive colorectal polyps 3-5 mm from December 2014 to October 2015. The primary outcome measures were en-bloc resection (endoscopic evaluation) and complete resection rates (pathological evaluation). The secondary outcome measures were the immediate bleeding or immediate perforation rate after polypectomy, delayed bleeding or delayed perforation rate after polypectomy, use of clipping for bleeding or perforation, and polyp retrieval rate. Prophylactic clipping after polyp removal wasn't routinely performed. RESULTS Two hundred eight patients were randomized into the CSP (102), HFB (106) and 283 polyps were evaluated (CSP: 148, HFB: 135). The en-bloc resection rate was significantly higher with CSP than with HFB [99.3% (147/148) vs 80.0% (108/135), P < 0.0001]. The complete resection rate was significantly higher with CSP than with HFB [80.4% (119/148) vs 47.4% (64/135), P < 0.0001]. The immediate bleeding rate was similar between the groups [8.6% (13/148) vs 8.1% (11/135), P = 1.000], and endoscopic hemostasis with hemoclips was successful in all cases. No cases of perforation or delayed bleeding occurred. The rate of severe tissue injury to the pathological specimen was higher HFB than CSP [52.6% (71/135) vs 1.3% (2/148), P < 0.0001]. Polyp retrieval failure was encountered CSP (7), HFB (2). CONCLUSION CSP is more effective than HFB for resecting diminutive polyps. Further long-term follow-up study is required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据