Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2014 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3

Cold snare polypectomy versus hot snare polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polyps

Pages
279–283
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Pathological examination showed that the polyps were not completely removed in 4 patients (5.13%) in the CP group and 4 patients (5.63%) in the HP group (p=0.89).Conclusion: CP is an effective and safe method that shortens the polypectomy duration in small polyps (<=9 mm) compared to HP.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/Aims: The removal of small colon polyps by hot snare polypectomy (HP) is a commonly used method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Herein, we explored the efficacy and safety of each method.Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012, 97 consecutive patients with small colorectal polyps ranging from 5-9 mm in size were separated into either the CP or HP group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pathological examination showed that the polyps were not completely removed in 4 patients (5.13%) in the CP group and 4 patients (5.63%) in the HP group (p=0.89).Conclusion: CP is an effective and safe method that shortens the polypectomy duration in small polyps (<=9 mm) compared to HP.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background/Aims: The removal of small colon polyps by hot snare polypectomy (HP) is a commonly used method. Polypectomy with a cold snare (CP) has been increasingly utilized in recent years. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. Herein, we explored the efficacy and safety of each method.Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012, 97 consecutive patients with small colorectal polyps ranging from 5-9 mm in size were separated into either the CP or HP group. Demographic data, the duration of polypectomy, and pathology reports were recorded. Results: Seventy-seven polyps were removed from 49 patients in the CP group, and 71 polyps were removed from 48 patients in the HP group. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to gender, age distribution, number of polyps, or indications for colonoscopy. The mean polyp size was 7.21±1.4 mm in the CP group and 7.56±1.45 mm in the HP group (p=0.111). There was a significant difference in the mean procedure time between the two groups (CP, 25.71±4.3 sec; HP, 70.28±11.3 sec, p<0.001). One patient (1.3/1.4%) from each group developed post-polypectomy bleeding that required treatment. Histological evaluation revealed that 10 of the polyps (6.75%) were advanced adenomas. Pathological examination showed that the polyps were not completely removed in 4 patients (5.13%) in the CP group and 4 patients (5.63%) in the HP group (p=0.89).Conclusion: CP is an effective and safe method that shortens the polypectomy duration in small polyps (<=9 mm) compared to HP.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASLAN, F., CAMCI, M., ALPER, E., AKPINAR, Z., ARABUL, M., ÇELİK, M., ÜNSAL, B. (2014). Cold snare polypectomy versus hot snare polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polyps. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3, 279–283. https://ajindex.com/articles/410268

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Davila RE, Rajan E, Baron TH, et al. ASGE guideline: colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc 2006
  2. [CrossRef] Robertson DJ. Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer prevention: is it ful- filling the promise? Gastrointest Endosc 2010
  3. [CrossRef] Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypec- tomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012
  4. [CrossRef] Fyock CJ, Draganov PV. Colonoscopic polypectomy and associated techniques. World J Gastroenterol 2010
  5. [CrossRef] Singh N, Harrison M, Rex DK. A survey of colonoscopic polypec- tomy practices among clinical gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 2004
  6. [CrossRef] Peluso F, Goldner F. Follow-up of hot biopsy forceps treatment of diminutive colonic polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1991
  7. [CrossRef] Van Gossum A, Cozzoli A, Adler M, Taton G, Cremer M. Colono- scopic snare polypectomy: analysis of 1485 resections compar- ing two types of current. Gastrointest Endosc 1992
  8. [CrossRef] Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: Report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest En- dosc 2010
  9. [CrossRef] Goldstein NS, Watts JC, Neill JS, et al. The effect of electrothermal cautery-assisted resection of diminutive colonic polyps on histo- pathologic diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol 2001
  10. [CrossRef] Mönkemüller KE, Fry LC, Jones BH, Wells C, Mikolaenko I, Eloubei- di M. Histological quality of polyps resected using the cold versus hot biopsy technique. Endoscopy 2004
  11. [CrossRef] Woods A, Sanowski RA, Wadas DD, Manne RK, Friess SW. Eradi- cation of diminutive polyps: a prospective evaluation of bipolar coagulation versus conventional biopsy removal. Gastrointest Endosc 1989
  12. [CrossRef] Repici A, Hassan C, Vitetta E, et al. Safety of cold polypectomy for Endoscopy 2012
  13. [CrossRef] Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neu- gut AI. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003
  14. [CrossRef] Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006
  15. [CrossRef] Ichise Y, Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Tanaka N. Prospective random- ized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Digestion 2