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...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.展开更多
文摘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.
