COLDWATER 随机对照试验结果:针对 5-10 毫米大肠息肉的水下冷套管息肉切除术效果更佳,与内镜医师的经验无关。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-14 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0889
Maria Zachou, Martha Nifora, Theodoros Androutsakos, Georgios Katsaras, Konstantinos Varytimiadis, Christina Zoumpouli, Panayiotis Karantanos, Efthimia Lalla, Georgios Mpetsios, Maria Panoutsakou, Roxana Stoica, Dionisia Thermou, Georgios Mavrogenis, Evangelia Ntikoudi, Nikolaos Nikiteas, Stavros Sougioultzis, Evangelos Kalaitzakis, Stilianos Kykalos
{"title":"COLDWATER 随机对照试验结果:针对 5-10 毫米大肠息肉的水下冷套管息肉切除术效果更佳,与内镜医师的经验无关。","authors":"Maria Zachou, Martha Nifora, Theodoros Androutsakos, Georgios Katsaras, Konstantinos Varytimiadis, Christina Zoumpouli, Panayiotis Karantanos, Efthimia Lalla, Georgios Mpetsios, Maria Panoutsakou, Roxana Stoica, Dionisia Thermou, Georgios Mavrogenis, Evangelia Ntikoudi, Nikolaos Nikiteas, Stavros Sougioultzis, Evangelos Kalaitzakis, Stilianos Kykalos","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The wide range of R0 resection rates (R0RR) and incomplete resection rates (IRR) observed with conventional cold snare polypectomy (CCSP) emphasizes the necessity for technique enhancement. The COLDWATER study aimed to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy (UCSP) to CCSP for 5-10-mm colorectal polyps, focusing on comprehensive histopathological evaluation, efficacy, and safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial comparing UCSP to CCSP for non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of size 5-10 mm. The primary outcome was to report differences in the <i>muscularis mucosa</i> resection ratio. The secondary outcomes focused on differences in depth of excision, R0-RR, IRR, <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The COLDWATER study found higher <i>muscularis mucosa</i> resection in UCSP (81.72±62.81% vs. CCSP: 72.33±22.33%, P=0.003) with comparable submucosa presence (UCSP: 16.6%, CCSP: 12.5%, P=0.25). UCSP showed better outcomes regarding IRR (3.5% vs. 8.5%, P=0.05) and <i>en bloc</i> resection (98% vs. 93.5%, P=0.04). In CCSP, expert endoscopists achieved higher R0RR than non-experts, while UCSP showed no significant difference in R0RR across endoscopist's experience levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UCSP achieves a more extensive excision of the <i>muscularis mucosa</i> compared to CCSP, even though it does not attain a deeper excision. Additionally, UCSP shows a higher <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, with lower rates of IRR, and emerges as a promising technique for training inexperienced endoscopists in polypectomy, given its experience-independent success in achieving R0 resection.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"37 4","pages":"466-475"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226736/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results of the COLDWATER randomized controlled trial: enhanced performance of underwater cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 5-10 mm, independent of endoscopist experience.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Zachou, Martha Nifora, Theodoros Androutsakos, Georgios Katsaras, Konstantinos Varytimiadis, Christina Zoumpouli, Panayiotis Karantanos, Efthimia Lalla, Georgios Mpetsios, Maria Panoutsakou, Roxana Stoica, Dionisia Thermou, Georgios Mavrogenis, Evangelia Ntikoudi, Nikolaos Nikiteas, Stavros Sougioultzis, Evangelos Kalaitzakis, Stilianos Kykalos\",\"doi\":\"10.20524/aog.2024.0889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The wide range of R0 resection rates (R0RR) and incomplete resection rates (IRR) observed with conventional cold snare polypectomy (CCSP) emphasizes the necessity for technique enhancement. The COLDWATER study aimed to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy (UCSP) to CCSP for 5-10-mm colorectal polyps, focusing on comprehensive histopathological evaluation, efficacy, and safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial comparing UCSP to CCSP for non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of size 5-10 mm. The primary outcome was to report differences in the <i>muscularis mucosa</i> resection ratio. The secondary outcomes focused on differences in depth of excision, R0-RR, IRR, <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The COLDWATER study found higher <i>muscularis mucosa</i> resection in UCSP (81.72±62.81% vs. CCSP: 72.33±22.33%, P=0.003) with comparable submucosa presence (UCSP: 16.6%, CCSP: 12.5%, P=0.25). UCSP showed better outcomes regarding IRR (3.5% vs. 8.5%, P=0.05) and <i>en bloc</i> resection (98% vs. 93.5%, P=0.04). In CCSP, expert endoscopists achieved higher R0RR than non-experts, while UCSP showed no significant difference in R0RR across endoscopist's experience levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UCSP achieves a more extensive excision of the <i>muscularis mucosa</i> compared to CCSP, even though it does not attain a deeper excision. Additionally, UCSP shows a higher <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, with lower rates of IRR, and emerges as a promising technique for training inexperienced endoscopists in polypectomy, given its experience-independent success in achieving R0 resection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"466-475\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226736/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0889\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0889","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:传统冷套扎息肉切除术(CCSP)的R0切除率(R0RR)和不全切除率(IRR)范围很广,这强调了改进技术的必要性。COLDWATER 研究旨在比较水下冷套扎息肉切除术(UCSP)与 CCSP 对 5-10 毫米结直肠息肉的治疗效果,重点关注组织病理学综合评估、有效性和安全性:这是一项随机、单盲、对照试验,比较了 UCSP 和 CCSP 对 5-10 毫米大小的非梗阻性结直肠息肉的治疗效果。主要结果是报告肌肉粘膜切除率的差异。次要结果侧重于切除深度、R0-RR、IRR、整块切除率、不良事件和复发率的差异:COLDWATER研究发现,UCSP的肌肉粘膜切除率更高(81.72±62.81% vs. CCSP:72.33±22.33%,P=0.003),粘膜下存在率相当(UCSP:16.6%,CCSP:12.5%,P=0.25)。UCSP在IRR(3.5% vs. 8.5%,P=0.05)和全灶切除(98% vs. 93.5%,P=0.04)方面的疗效更好。在CCSP中,专业内镜医师的R0RR高于非专业内镜医师,而UCSP显示不同内镜医师经验水平的R0RR无显著差异:结论:与CCSP相比,UCSP能更大范围地切除粘膜肌肉,但切除深度不够。此外,UCSP显示出更高的全切率,IRR率更低,是培训缺乏经验的内镜医师进行息肉切除术的一种有前途的技术,因为它在实现R0切除方面的成功与经验无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Results of the COLDWATER randomized controlled trial: enhanced performance of underwater cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 5-10 mm, independent of endoscopist experience.

Background: The wide range of R0 resection rates (R0RR) and incomplete resection rates (IRR) observed with conventional cold snare polypectomy (CCSP) emphasizes the necessity for technique enhancement. The COLDWATER study aimed to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy (UCSP) to CCSP for 5-10-mm colorectal polyps, focusing on comprehensive histopathological evaluation, efficacy, and safety.

Methods: This was a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial comparing UCSP to CCSP for non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of size 5-10 mm. The primary outcome was to report differences in the muscularis mucosa resection ratio. The secondary outcomes focused on differences in depth of excision, R0-RR, IRR, en bloc resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence rate.

Results: The COLDWATER study found higher muscularis mucosa resection in UCSP (81.72±62.81% vs. CCSP: 72.33±22.33%, P=0.003) with comparable submucosa presence (UCSP: 16.6%, CCSP: 12.5%, P=0.25). UCSP showed better outcomes regarding IRR (3.5% vs. 8.5%, P=0.05) and en bloc resection (98% vs. 93.5%, P=0.04). In CCSP, expert endoscopists achieved higher R0RR than non-experts, while UCSP showed no significant difference in R0RR across endoscopist's experience levels.

Conclusions: UCSP achieves a more extensive excision of the muscularis mucosa compared to CCSP, even though it does not attain a deeper excision. Additionally, UCSP shows a higher en bloc resection rate, with lower rates of IRR, and emerges as a promising technique for training inexperienced endoscopists in polypectomy, given its experience-independent success in achieving R0 resection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Laparoscopic Heller myotomy versus peroral endoscopic myotomy in children with esophageal achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Paraduodenal pancreatitis as diagnostic challenge: clinical and morphological features of patients with pancreatic pathology involving the pancreatic groove. Prognosis after curative resection of non-metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective tertiary center study. Real-world outcomes of collaborative surgery for gastrointestinal tumors by endoscopists and surgeons: a single-center retrospective analysis of 131 patients. Technical success and adverse event rates after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using deep sedation with propofol.
×
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