Cold Snare Polypectomy Research Articles

Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cold resection of colorectal lesions is widely performed because of its safety and effectiveness; however, it remains uncertain whether adding submucosal injection could improve the efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) versus cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal lesions. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was complete resection. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection, and adverse events (AEs). Prespecified subgroup analyses based on the size and morphology of the polyps were performed. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, with corresponding 95%CIs, for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics. 7 RCTs were included, comprising 1556 patients, with 2287 polyps analyzed. C-EMR and CSP had similar risk ratios for complete resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98-1.07), en bloc resection (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82-1.41), and AEs (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41-1.32). C-EMR had a longer procedure time (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5-69.7 seconds). In stratified subgroup analyses, the risk was not statistically different between C-EMR and CSP for complete resection in polyps<10 mm or ≥10 mm, or for complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs in the two groups among nonpedunculated polyps. The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time. CRD42023439605.

Mucosa color and size may indicate malignant transformation of chicken skin mucosa-positive colorectal neoplastic polyps.

Lipid metabolism reprogramming is suspected to exist in pre-cancerous lesions, including colorectal adenoma. Screening colonoscopy frequently reveals chicken skin mucosa (CSM; white or yellow-white speckled mucosa) surrounding colorectal polyps, caused by macrophages engulfing and accumulating the lipids decomposed by colon cells or adjacent tumors. CSM-positive colorectal polyps are associated with various diseases; however, their prognosis varies greatly. Cold snare polypectomy is commonly used to resect lesions up to 10 to 15 mm in diameter without signs of submucosal invasion but is controversial for CSM-positive colorectal polyps. Improved imaging is required to diagnose and treat CSM-positive colorectal polyps. To highlight the clinical significance of CSM surrounding colorectal polyps and clarify the associated treatment for endoscopists. This retrospective cohort study included 177 patients with CSM-positive colorectal polyps diagnosed using endoscopy. All patient-related information was extracted from the Goldisc soft-clinic DICOM system or electronic medical record system. Based on the pathological results, patients were classified as non-neoplastic polyps (five juvenile polyps), neoplastic polyps, non-invasive high-grade neoplasia (NHGN), or submucosal invasive carcinoma (SM stage cancer). We analyzed and compared the clinical features, suspected risk factors for malignant transformation of neoplastic polyps, and early infiltration of submucosal carcinoma. The diameters of NHGN and SM polyps were much smaller than those of neoplastic polyps. Most NHGN polyps had a deeper red mucosal color. On logistic regression analyses, diameter and deeper red mucosal color were independent risk factors for malignant transformation of neoplastic polyps. Type 1 CSM was more common in high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and SM; type 2 CSM was more common in neoplastic polyps. Logistic regression analyses revealed no significant differences in the malignant transformation of neoplastic polyps or early submucosal invasion of CSM-positive colorectal cancer. Changes in the CSM mucosa surrounding neoplastic polyps and submucosal invasion of colorectal cancer disappeared within 12 months. No tumor recurrence was found during either partial or complete endoscopic resection of the CSM. CSM-positive colorectal polyps > 1 cm in diameter or with deeper red mucosa may be related to NHGN. Resection of CSM surrounding colorectal adenomas did not affect tumor recurrence.

Cold Snare Polypectomy With or Without Submucosal Injection for Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The impact of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. We conducted an evidence-based comparison of conventional CSP (C-CSP) and CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) for colorectal polyp resection. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing C-CSP with SI-CSP. Major outcomes included the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, polyp retrieval, and adverse events, as well as the duration of polypectomy. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model. A total of seven RCTs were included. Complete resection rates for all polyps (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03), polyps ≤ 10mm (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02) and polyps > 10mm (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.12) were not substantially different between C-CSP and SI-CSP groups. En bloc resection rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09) and polyp retrieval rate (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01) were also not significantly different between the two groups. The SI-CSP group required a prolonged polypectomy time than the C-CSP group (SMD - 0.89; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.49). Adverse events were rare in both groups. SI-CSP is not an optimal substitute for CSP in the resection of colorectal polyps, particularly diminutive and small polyps.

Results of the COLDWATER randomized controlled trial: enhanced performance of underwater cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 5-10 mm, independent of endoscopist experience.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Histopathologic vertical margin positivity in cold snare polypectomy and mucosal resection for sessile serrated lesions

Background and AimsEvidence regarding the status of the vertical margin of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) resected using cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is lacking, and whether a histopathologically positive vertical margin is related to recurrence remains unclear. Therefore, this preliminary study aimed to clarify the rates of positive or unevaluable vertical and horizontal margins and the rate of muscularis mucosae resection in SSLs treated using CSP compared with those treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). MethodsHistological outcomes of patients treated with CSP or EMR for SSL were evaluated in this single-center observational study. The primary outcome was the incidence of histopathologically positive vertical margins in CSP and EMR. Furthermore, the comparisons were adjusted for confounding factors using propensity score matching. ResultsOverall, 82 patients with SSLs were included in the CSP and EMR groups after matching. The incidence of positive histological vertical margins in the CSP and EMR groups were 67.1% and 2.4%, respectively (p<0.001). Regarding the evaluation of the presence of muscularis mucosae, 29.3% and 98.8% of the patients in the CSP and EMR groups, respectively, had a complete muscularis mucosae resection (p<0.001). ConclusionsA rigorous histopathologic evaluation revealed that for SSLs, CSP more frequently leads to positive vertical margins than EMR.

Geometry of cold snare polypectomy and risk of incomplete resection.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is safer than and equally efficacious as hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for the removal of small (<10mm) colorectal polyps. The maximum polyp size that can be effectively managed by piecemeal CSP (p-CSP) without an excessive burden of recurrence is unknown. Resection error risks (RERs), defined as the estimated likelihood of incomplete removal of adenomatous tissue for a single snare resection pass, for CSP and HSP were calculated, based on an incomplete resection rate. Polyp area, snare size, estimated number of resections, and optimal resection defect area were modeled. Overall risk of incomplete resection (RIR) was defined as RIR=1 - (1 - p)n, where p is the RER and n the number of resections. A 40-mm polyp has a four times greater area than a 20-mm polyp (314.16mm2 vs. 1256.64mm2), and requires three times more resections (11 vs. 33, respectively, assuming 8-mm piecemeal resection pieces for p-CSP). RIRs for a 40-mm polyp by HSP and p-CSP were 15.1%-23% and 40.74%-60.60% respectively. RER is more important with p-CSP than with HSP. The number of resections, n, and consequently RIR increases with increasing polyp size. Given the overwhelming safety of CSP, specific techniques to minimize the RER should be studied and developed.

Utility of prophylactic clipping after colorectal cold snare polypectomy in patients on oral antithrombotic agents

There is no consensus on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after colonic cold snare polypectomy (CSP). This study aimed to evaluate the utility of prophylactic clipping in preventing delayed bleeding (DB) after colorectal CSP in patients on antithrombotic agents. We retrospectively recruited consecutive patients on antithrombotic agents who underwent colorectal CSP in Chiba University Hospital. The DB rate was compared between patients with and without prophylactic clipping. The study included 133 patients (422 polyps) requiring prophylactic clipping and 85 patients (282 polyps) not requiring prophylactic clipping. The DB and hematochezia rates have no significant difference between both groups. By weighted logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio of hematochezia was 0.557 (95% confidence interval, 0.225-1.378; p = 0.205) in patients without clipping compared to those with clipping. Prophylactic clipping may not be necessary to prevent DB after colorectal CSP in patients on antithrombotic agents.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resecting 3–10 mm Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: The safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to those of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) have been reported. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP in removing 3–10 mm polyps. The outcomes assessed included complete resection rate, intraoperative bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, perforation, and polyp removal time. The results are reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Results: Seven studies comprising 1,911 polyps were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate of CEMR was comparable to that of CSP (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99–1.04, p = 0.32). Comparable results were also demonstrated for intraoperative bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.33–4.43, p = 0.77), delayed bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.44–4.15, p = 0.61), and polyp removal time (mean difference: 28.31 s, 95% CI: −21.40–78.02, p = 0.26). No studies reported cases of perforation. Conclusion: CEMR has comparable efficacy and safety to CSP in removing 3–10 mm polyps. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to compare and validate efficacy.

Comparison of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated lesions ≥10 mm between experienced and trainee endoscopists: A propensity score matching cohort study.

Previous studies of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) ≥10 mm were performed by experienced endoscopists, and therefore their skills might have significantly influenced results. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSLs ≥10 mm between experienced and trainee endoscopists. In a 1:1 propensity score matched retrospective cohort study, we compared the complete resection rate, en-bloc resection rate, adverse event rate, and procedure time between experienced and trainee groups. Thirteen endoscopists performed CSP, and we defined the experienced group as endoscopists with board certification from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. We examined 616 lesions with SSLs ≥10 mm resected by CSP between February 2018 and May 2022. We excluded 61 lesions from the analysis because they had simultaneously undergone hot snare polypectomy (n = 57) or had been taken over by experienced endoscopists from trainees in the CSP procedure (n = 4). Finally, we identified 217 propensity score-matched pairs (n = 434). Between experienced and trainee groups, the results were complete resection rate (100 vs. 100%; p = 1.00), en-bloc resection rate (73.2 vs. 75.6%; p = 0.24), adverse event rate (3.2 vs. 2.8%; p = 0.77), or procedure time (6.2 vs. 5.9 min; p = 0.64). We have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of CSP for SSLs ≥10 mm performed by experienced and trainee endoscopists.

A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy and hot snare polypectomy in removing colorectal polyps ≤ 10 mm.

The optimal methods for removing polyps remain controversial especially for polyps ≤10mm. We aim to combine the latest evidence to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in the removal of colorectal polyps ≤10mm in size. We performed an extensive search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, with the search period ending in April 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness and/or safety of CSP and HSP for the removal of ≤10mm colorectal polyps.The final outcomes included complete resection rate, operation time, and postoperative adverse events (including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation) rates. A total of 14 eligible randomized controlled trials were included, involving 7,460 patients and 15,829 polyps. The incidence of immediate bleeding was observed to be more prevalent in CSP in contrast to HSP, and the disparity was statistically notable (OR=2.18, 95% CI: 1.43-3.30, I2=36%, P=0.0003). The incidence of delayed bleeding was observed to be lower in CSP in contrast to HSP, and this difference was statistically significant (OR=0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.58, I2=0%, P=0.0003). Procedure time: both the total colonoscopy time and specific polypectomy time were shorter in CSP than in HSP (MD=-5.92, 95% CI: -9.70 to -2.14, I2=96%, P=0.002; MD=-0.56, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.20, I2=77%, P=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in complete resection and the polyp retrieval rate between CSP and HSP. CSP is as effective and safe as HSP for ≤10mm colorectal polyps, while effectively reducing the risk of delayed bleeding and shortening the procedure time.

Efficacy of hemostatic gel for perioperative bleeding and prevention of delayed bleeding of cold snare polypectomy under anticoagulant.

A hemostatic gel, PuraStat (3-D Matrix, Tokyo, Japan), is used for various gastrointestinal hemostasis. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy of PuraStat for perioperative bleeding (POB) and prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) to colorectal cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with continuous anticoagulant. This was a single-center, retrospective study. Subjects were lesions of 2-9 mm under continuous anticoagulant from 2021 to 2023 and treated with PuraStat for POB. The definition of POB was bleeding which did not stop spontaneously by 1.0-1.5 min after resection and needed hemostasis. Successful hemostasis was defined as cessation of bleeding within 1.0-1.5 min after spraying PuraStat and the rate of it and risk factors of POB were analyzed. For comparison, cases receiving previous CSP without PuraStat were extracted from all cases with CSP (2018-2021), and POB and DB rate (DBR) were analyzed after propensity score matching. One hundred twenty-two lesions (91: direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), 31: warfarin) with anticoagulant were analyzed and the rate of successful hemostasis with PuraStat was 92.6% (DOAC/warfarin: 93.4%/80.6%, P = 0.01). The rate of DB was 0.0%. Multivariate analysis showed that significant risk factors about unsuccessful hemostasis for POB with PuraStat were lesion size 8-9 mm (P < 0.01), warfarin (P = 0.01), and combination of antiplatelet (P = 0.01). Regarding the comparison about CSP with/without PuraStat, the clipping rate and DBR were 8.5%/94.9% (P < 0.01) and 0%/1.7% (P = 1.0). The effects of PuraStat for POB and DB in colorectal CSP with continuous anticoagulant were acceptable.

Effectiveness and safety of different methods of removal of medium —sized benign colorectal polyps using cold snare polypectomy

Effectiveness and safety of different methods of removal of medium —sized benign colorectal polyps using cold snare polypectomy

Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Hot Snare Polypectomy in Endoscopic Treatment of Non Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps larger than or equal 1 Cm

Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Hot Snare Polypectomy in Endoscopic Treatment of Non Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps larger than or equal 1 Cm

Effectiveness and safety of thin vs. thick cold snare polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) is considered the standard of care for resection of colorectal polyps ≤10 mm. Data on the efficacy of CSP performed with thin-wire snares compared0 with thick-wire snares are conflicting. We performed a meta-analysis comparing complete resection (CR) and adverse event rates of CSP using thin-wire and thick-wire snares. Patients and methods Comparative studies of adult patients with ≧1 colorectal polyp(s) ≦10 mm who underwent CSP with thin-wire or thick-wire snares were included. We collected data on study, patient, polyp, and snare characteristics. The primary outcome was CR rate. Secondary outcomes were polyp retrieval rate, intraprocedural bleeding, delayed post-polypectomy bleeding, deep mural injury or perforation, patient discomfort, total sedation, and procedure time. We used random-effects models to calculate risk ratios for outcomes. We performed risk of bias assessments, rated the certainty of evidence, and assessed publication bias for all studies. Results We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two observational studies including 1316 patients with 1679 polyps (826 thin-wire CSPs and 853 thick-wire CSPs). There was no significant difference between thin-wire CSP (92.1%) and thick-wire CSP (87.7%) for RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.16) or observational studies (78.1% versus 79.6%, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99-1.08). There were no significant differences in polyp retrieval rate or intraprocedural bleeding. There were no cases of delayed bleeding or perforation. Conclusions We found no differences in CR rates for CSP between thin-wire and thick-wire snares. CSP, regardless of snare type, is safe and effective for resection of small colorectal polyps.

Advancements in endoscopic management of small-bowel polyps in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis.

Before the development of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE), the standard management of small-bowel polyposis was surgical resection. This is an invasive procedure that could lead to short bowel syndrome. In the 21st century, several new enteroscopy techniques were distributed worldwide, including DBE, single-balloon enteroscopy, spiral enteroscopy, and motorized spiral enteroscopy. These devices enable the diagnoses and endoscopic interventions in the entire small bowel, even in patients with a history of laparotomy. In patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS), endoscopic ischemic polypectomy with clips or a detachable snare is the preferred method for managing pedunculated polyps because it is less likely to cause adverse events than conventional polypectomy. Although polyps in patients with PJS always recur, repeat endoscopic resection can reduce the total number and mean size of polyps in the long-term clinical course. Endoscopic reduction of small-bowel intussusception caused by PJS polyps can be successfully performed using DBE without surgery. A transparent hood is useful for securing a visual field during the treatment of small-bowel polyps, and minimal water exchange method is recommended to facilitate deep insertion. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a genetic disorder that increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer. Because jejunal and ileal polyps in patients with FAP have the potential to develop into cancer via the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, periodical surveillance, and endoscopic resection are needed for them, not only polyps in the duodenum. In cases of multiple small-bowel polyps in patients with FAP, cold snare polypectomy without retrieval is an acceptable treatment option for polyps that are 10 mm or smaller in size. Additional good pieces of evidence are necessary to confirm these findings because this narrative review mostly includes retrospective observational studies from single center, case reports, and expert reviews.

Resectability of Small Duodenal Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Cold Snare Polypectomy.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are novel endoscopic procedures for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, consensus on how to use both procedures appropriately has not been established. In this study, we evaluated treatment outcomes of both procedures, including resectability. In this single-center randomized controlled study conducted between January 2020 and June 2022, patients with SNADET ≤12 mm were randomly allocated to UEMR and CSP groups. The primary end point was sufficient vertical R0 resection (SVR0), which was defined as R0 resection including a sufficient submucosal layer. We compared treatment outcomes including SVR0 rate between groups. The SVR0 rate was significantly higher in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (65.6% vs 41.5%, P = 0.01). By contrast, the R0 resection rate was not significantly different between study groups (70.3% vs 61.5%, P = 0.29). The submucosal layer thickness was significantly greater in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (median 546 [range, 309-833] μm vs 69 [0-295] μm, P < 0.01). CSP had a shorter total procedure time (median 12 [range, 8-16] min vs 1 [1-3] min, P < 0.01) and fewer total bleeding events (9.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.06). UEMR has superior vertical resectability compared with CSP, but CSP has a shorter procedure time and fewer bleeding events. Although CSP is preferable for most small SNADET, UEMR should be selected for lesions that cannot be definitively diagnosed as mucosal low-grade neoplasias.

Feasibility and Safety of Endoscopic Control for Patients with Serrated Polyposis Syndrome

Introduction: Despite advances in endoscopic treatment, patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) occasionally require surgery due to numerous or unresectable polyps, recurrence, and treatment-related adverse events. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 43 patients with SPS undergoing diagnosis and treatment at Omori Red Cross Hospital from 2011 to 2022. Resection of all polyps ≥3 mm in size was planned during the clearing phase; endoscopic control was defined as complete, endoscopic polyp removal. During the surveillance phase, patients underwent annual colonoscopy and resection of newly detected polyps ≥3 mm in size. Results: Thirty-eight patients (88%) achieved endoscopic control, two (5%) required surgery after endoscopic treatment because of colorectal cancer (CRC), and three (7%) have not yet achieved endoscopic control and are planning treatment. Endoscopic control was achieved with a median of four colonoscopies at 8 months. Ten polyps (median value) were resected per patient during the clearing phase. Three polyps ≥50 mm in size, six located in the appendiceal orifice, and seven with severe fibrosis could be resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). All patients underwent treatment with a combination of cold snare polypectomy (CSP), endoscopic mucosal resection/hot polypectomy, and/or ESD. No case required surgery due to difficulty with endoscopic treatment. Delayed bleeding was observed in 2 cases (0.3%). Twenty-one patients underwent colonoscopies during the surveillance phase. Fifty-three polyps were resected using CSP; no CRC, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or advanced adenoma were detected. Conclusion: SPS can be effectively, efficiently, and safely controlled with appropriate endoscopic management.

Endoscopic treatment of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer

Background: Colonoscopy offers higher diagnostic sensitivity than other colorectal cancer screening methods and provides the advantage of both diagnostic tissue sampling and polyp removal. Since the majority of colorectal cancers evolve from adenomatous polyps, polyp resection through colonoscopy is widely considered an effective method of preventing colorectal cancer and reducing mortality rates.Current Concepts: Determining colorectal polyp size and shape requires comprehensive endoscopy with enhanced imaging techniques to choose treatment directions and the appropriate colorectal polypectomy method. The selection of the polypectomy method is contingent upon the polyp’s attributes and possible malignancy according to US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and European gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines. This article examines eight polypectomy procedures: cold forceps polypectomy, hot biopsy polypectomy, cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and modified EMR techniques. Each method has unique benefits and is suitable for particular polyp types and sizes. Piecemeal EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection offer alternatives for larger or challenging lesions that require careful planning and follow-up. After endoscopic resection of early colorectal cancer, further surgery may be necessary depending on the risk of lymph node metastasis as determined by specific histologic findings following Korean and Japanese guidelines.Discussion and Conclusion: The choice of endoscopic resection technique, which depends on factors such as polyp shape, size, and location as well as endoscopist skill, is crucial for ensuring complete polyp removal.

Cold snare resection for non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background and study aims The role of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in curative resection of non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas (NASDA) is debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP for NASDA. Patients and methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified published series of patients with CSP for NASDA by searching PubMed and Google Scholar, which resulted in six papers (205 lesions). The main outcome was the rate of local remission after repeated CSP, the secondary outcomes were rates of local remission at first control and rates for delayed bleeding and immediate perforations. We computed the weighted summary proportions under the fixed and random effects model. Results The pooled proportion of local remission after repeated CSP was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%-100%). The pooled proportion of local remission at first control was 81% (95% CI 55%-98%), the pooled proportion of delayed bleeding was 1% (95% CI 0%-4%) and the pooled proportion of immediate perforation was 0% (95% CI 0%-2%). Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that CSP should be considered as the first-line therapy for NASDA.

COLD SNARE POLYPECTOMY: A SAFE PROCEDURE FOR REMOVING SMALL NON-PEDUNCULATED COLORECTAL LESIONS.

Polypectomy is an important treatment option for preventing colorectal cancer. Incomplete polyp resection (IPR) is re-cognized as a risk factor for interval cancer. The primary objective was to evaluate the complete polyp resection (CPR) rate for cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in small non-pedunculated polyps and, secondarily, specimen retrieval and complication rates. We prospectively evaluated 479 polyps <10 mm removed by CSP in 276 patients by an inexperienced endoscopist. A total of 476 polyps (99.4%) were resected en bloc. A negative margin (classified as CPR) was observed in 435 polyps (90.8%). An unclear or positive margin (classified as IPR) was observed in 43 cases (9.0%) and 1 case (0.2%), respectively, for an overall IPR rate of 9.2% (44/479). The IPR rate was 12.2% in the first half of cases and 5.9% in the second half (P=0.02). Dividing into tertiles, the IPR rate was 15.0% in the first tertile, 6.9% in the second tertile, and 5.7% in the third tertile (P=0.01). Dividing into quartiles, the IPR rate was 15.8% in the first quartile and 5.9% in the fourth quartile (P=0.03). The IPR rate was 6.3% for type 0-IIa lesions and 14.1% for type 0-Is lesions (P=0.01). For serrated and adenomatous lesions, the IPR rate was 9.2%. Specimen retrieval failed in 3.6% of cases. Immediate bleeding (>30 s) occurred in 1 case (0.2%), treated with argon plasma coagulation. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred. CSP is a safe technique that provides good results for the resection of small non-pedunculated polyps, with a short learning curve.