4.3 Article

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps

期刊

DIGESTION
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 78-81

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000323959

关键词

Cold snare polypectomy; Small colorectal polyps; Conventional polypectomy; Post-polypectomy symptoms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients' demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p < 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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