Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Clinical Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-23 DOI:10.5946/ce.2024.081
Vishali Moond, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Sheza Malik, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Babu P Mohan, Daryl Ramai, Michele McGinnis, Deepak Madhu, Mohammad Bilal, Aasma Shaukat, Saurabh Chandan
{"title":"Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Vishali Moond, Priyadarshini Loganathan, Sheza Malik, Dushyant Singh Dahiya, Babu P Mohan, Daryl Ramai, Michele McGinnis, Deepak Madhu, Mohammad Bilal, Aasma Shaukat, Saurabh Chandan","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"747-758"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11637670/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.

Results: The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冷吸息肉切除术与冷内镜粘膜切除术治疗小结直肠息肉:随机对照试验荟萃分析。
背景/目的:冷套管息肉切除术(CSP)是治疗小结直肠息肉(≤10 毫米)的常规方法。然而,其面临的挑战包括切除深度不够和即刻出血,从而阻碍了精确的病理评估。我们旨在利用随机对照试验(RCTs)的数据,比较冷内镜粘膜切除术(CEMR)与CSP治疗≤10毫米大肠息肉的效果:2023年12月,我们在多个数据库中检索了报告CSP与CEMR治疗大小≤10毫米的结直肠息肉结果的随机对照试验。我们的主要结果是完全切除率和全切率,次要结果是总切除时间(秒)和不良事件,包括即刻出血、延迟出血和穿孔:完全切除率(CSP,91.8% 对 CEMR,94.6%)、全切除率(CSP,98.9% 对 CEMR,98.3%)或不完全切除率(CSP,6.7% 对 CEMR,4.8%)均无显著差异。不良事件发生率的差异同样不显著。然而,CEMR的平均切除时间明显更长(133.51秒对91.30秒):我们对七项 RCT 进行的荟萃分析表明,虽然 CSP 和 CEMR 对切除小的(≤10 毫米)结直肠息肉同样安全有效,但后者的切除时间更长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Transforming outcomes: the pivotal role of self-expanding metal stents in right- and left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions-bridge to surgery: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Predictors of failure of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement: a retrospective study in a tertiary care center in the USA. Refractory duodenal ulcer caused by portal stent graft exposure. Remimazolam, a novel drug, for safe and effective endoscopic sedation. Comments on 'Development of colonic stent simulator using three-dimensional printing technique: a simulator development study in Korea'.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1