Hot Snare Polypectomy Research Articles

S379 Endoscopist Aggregated Hot Snare Polypectomy Rate is Associated With Increased Risk of Colonoscopy Adverse Events

S379 Endoscopist Aggregated Hot Snare Polypectomy Rate is Associated With Increased Risk of Colonoscopy Adverse Events

Effective utilization of polypectomy in endoscopic salvage treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective cohort study.

Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNETs) under 10 mm. Incomplete resections necessitate salvage procedures, highlighting the need for complete R0 resection. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of wide hot snare polypectomy (WHSP) compared to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the salvage treatment of small RNETs. This retrospective study was conducted at Korea University Guro Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022. It compared the outcomes of salvage resections for RNETs ≤10 mm using 2 approaches: ESD and EMR vs. WHSP. Demographics, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared. Efficacy was evaluated by the histological complete resection rate and procedure time, while safety was assessed by the incidence of complications. Out of 135 patients undergoing salvage resection for RNET, 14 who underwent transanal excision were excluded. Of the remaining 121, 99 underwent EMR or ESD, and 22 underwent WHSP. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The WHSP group demonstrated a significantly higher R0 resection rate (72.7% vs. 49.5%, P = 0.010) and a shorter median procedure time (3.5 minutes vs. 8.3 minutes). No complications were reported in the WHSP group. WHSP is a rapid, straightforward, safe, and effective approach for the salvage treatment of RNETs less than 10 mm in diameter, particularly in patients without additional risk factors.

Adverse Events after Different Endoscopic Resection Procedures for Small and Intermediate-Sized Colorectal Polyps.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) have been developed recently, in addition to conventional methods, but adverse events of each method have not been fully clarified. We compared the outcomes of each method for the appropriate choice. Patients who underwent CSP, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)/hot snare polypectomy (HSP), or UEMR for small and intermediate-sized colorectal polyps between April 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively examined. The rate of adverse events and recurrences due to each method were determined as the main outcomes. Clinical factors related to adverse events were examined. A total of 1,025 patients with 3,163 polyps underwent polypectomy using any of the methods. CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR were performed for 704 (22.2%), 2,145 (67.8%), and 314 polyps (9.9%), and the median size for each method was 4, 6, and 7 mm, respectively. Delayed bleeding for CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0%, 0.2%, and 0.6% (p = 0.15), and perforation was 0%, 0.1%, and 0%, respectively (p = 0.62). Recurrence after CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0.3%, 0.09%, and 1.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). Recurrence for UEMR was significantly higher in the early stage of procedure introduction (p = 0.015). Oral anticoagulants were the risk factor for delayed bleeding (p < 0.01, respectively). There was no significant difference regarding adverse events among each method for small and intermediate-sized polyps, although the recurrence rate after UEMR was higher than other methods.

Colorectal Post-polypectomy Bleeding in Outpatient versus Inpatient Treatment: Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of colorectal polyps. However, whether the incidence of delayed bleeding differs between outpatient and inpatient treatment is unknown. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate delayed bleeding rates between outpatient and inpatient endoscopic treatments and clarify the safety of outpatient treatment. We enrolled 469 patients (1077 polyps) and 420 patients (1080 polyps) in the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively, who underwent EMR or HSP for colorectal polyps at our institution between April 2020 and May 2023. Using propensity score matching, we evaluated the delayed bleeding rates between the two groups. Delayed bleeding was defined as a hemorrhage requiring endoscopic hemostasis occurring within 14 days of the procedure. Propensity score matching created 376 (954 polyps) matched patient pairs. The median maximum diameter of polyps removed was 10 mm in both groups. Delayed bleeding rates per patients were 1.3% (5/376) in the outpatient group and 2.9% (11/376) in the inpatient group (P=0.21). In term of per polyp, early delayed bleeding (occurring within 24 hours) rates were higher in the inpatient group than outpatient group (0.2% [2/954] vs. 1.1% [10/954], respectively; P=0.04). No severe bleeding requiring a transfusion occurred in either group. Outpatient endoscopic treatment did not increase delayed bleeding compared with inpatient treatment. Outpatient treatment would be safe and common for the removal of colorectal polyps.

Endoscopic techniques for management of large colorectal polyps, strictures and leaks

The implementation of screening colonoscopy with polyp removal has significantly decreased mortality rates associated with colorectal cancer (CRC), although it remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths globally. CRC typically originates from adenomatous polyps, and increased removal of these growths has led to reduced CRC incidence and mortality. Endoscopic polypectomy techniques, including hot and cold snare polypectomy, play a pivotal role in this process. While both methods are effective for small polyps (<10 mm), recent evidence favors cold snare polypectomy due to its superior safety profile and comparable complete resection rates. Large polyps (>10 mm), particularly those with advanced features, pose increased cancer risks and often require meticulous assessment and advanced endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), for resection.This chapter also provides a practical overview of endoscopic techniques for managing colonic obstructions and pericolonic fluid collections, detailing their indications, advantages, disadvantages, and complications. The goal is to improve understanding and application in clinical practice. Additionally, we provide a summary of endoscopic closure techniques that have revolutionized the management of perforations and fistulas, offering safe and effective alternatives to surgery.

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study.

Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching. We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P=0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P=0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups. Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

Bleeding Risk of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps Measuring 10 mm or Less: Subgroup Analysis of a Large Randomized Controlled Trial.

Concerns regarding bleeding remain in cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small pedunculated (0-Ip) polyps. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for such lesions. Data on 0-Ip colorectal polyps ≤10 mm were extracted from a large, pragmatic, randomized trial. Immediate postpolypectomy bleeding (IPPB), defined as the perioperative use of a clip for bleeding, was evaluated through polyp-level analysis. Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB), defined as bleeding occurring within 2 weeks postoperatively, was assessed at the patient-level among patients whose polyps were all ≤10 mm, including at least one 0-Ip polyp. A total of 647 0-Ip polyps (CSP: 306; HSP: 341) were included for IPPB analysis and 386 patients (CSP: 192; HSP: 194) for DPPB analysis. CSP was associated with a higher incidence of IPPB (10.8% vs 3.2%, P < 0.001) but no adverse clinical events. The procedure time of all polypectomies was shorter for CSP than for HSP (123.0 ± 117.8 vs 166.0 ± 237.7 seconds, P = 0.003), while the procedure time of polypectomies with IPPB were similar (249.8 ± 140.2 vs 227.4 ± 125.9 seconds, P = 0.64). DPPB was observed in 3 patients (1.5%) in the HSP group, including one patient (0.5%) with severe bleeding, but not in the CSP group. Despite CSP being associated with more IPPB events, it could be timely treated without adverse outcomes. Notably, no delayed bleeding occurred in the CSP group. Our findings support the use of CSP for 0-Ip polyps ≤ 10 mm.

Safety and efficacy of low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for small nonpedunculated colorectal polyps compared with conventional resection methods: A propensity score matching analysis.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is widely performed for small colorectal polyps. However, small colorectal polyps sometimes include high-grade adenomas or carcinomas that require endoscopic resection with electrocautery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel resection technique, hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC-HSP) for small colorectal polyps, compared with CSP and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Records of patients who underwent CSP, EMR, or LPPC-HSP for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps less than 10 mm between April 2021 and March 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. We analyzed and compared the treatment outcomes of CSP and EMR with those of LPPC-HSP using propensity score matching. After propensity score matching of 396 pairs, an analysis of CSP and LPPC-HSP indicated that LPPC-HSP had a significantly higher R0 resection rate (84% vs. 68%; p < 0.01). Delayed bleeding was observed in only two cases treated with CSP before matching. Perforation was not observed with either treatment. After propensity score matching of 176 pairs, an analysis of EMR and LPPC-HSP indicated that their en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different (99.4% vs. 100%, p = 1.00; 79% vs. 81%, p = 0.79). Delayed bleeding and perforation were not observed with either treatment. The safety of LPPC-HSP was comparable to that of CSP. The treatment outcomes of LPPC-HSP were comparable to those of conventional EMR for small polyps. These results suggest that this technique is a safe and effective treatment for nonpedunculated polyps less than 10 mm.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Cold Snare Polypectomy in Small (

Endoscopic removal techniques for colorectal polyps include cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Although HSP is recommended for pedunculated polyps (PPs) larger than 10mm, data regarding use of CSP for PPs <10mm continues to emerge. We aimed to investigate outcomes of these techniques in small (<10mm) pedunculated colorectal polyps. Multiple databases were searched till June 2022 to identify studies involving the removal of small PPs with CSP and HSP. Random effects model was used to calculate outcomes and 95% CI. Primary outcome was the pooled rate of successful en-bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were immediate and delayed bleeding with CSP and HSP as well as prophylactic and post resection clip placement. Six studies including 1025 patients (1111 polyps with a mean size 4 to 8.5mm) were analyzed. 116 and 995 polyps were removed with HSP and CSP, respectively. The overall pooled rate of successful en-bloc resection with CSP was 99.7% (CI 99.1-99.9; I2 0%). Pooled immediate and delayed bleeding after CSP was 49.8% (CI 46.8-52.91; I2 98%) and 0% (CI 0.00-0.00; I2 0%), respectively. Delayed bleeding was higher with HSP, relative risk 0.05 (CI 0.01-0.43; I2 0%), P =0.006, whereas immediate bleeding was higher with CSP, relative risk 7.89 (CI 4.36-14.29; I2 0%), P <0.00001. Pooled rates of prophylactic clip placement and post-procedure clip placement (to control immediate bleeding) were 55.3% and 47.2%, respectively. Finally, right colon polyp location significantly correlated with frequency of immediate bleeding. Our analysis shows that CSP is safe and effective for resection of small PPs.

The Safety of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy in Polyps 10-20 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Colonoscopy remains the primary method for preventing colorectal cancer. Traditionally, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) was the method of choice for removing polyps larger than 5 mm. Yet, for polyps smaller than 10 mm, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has become the favored approach. Lately, the use of CSP has expanded to include the removal of sessile polyps that are between 10 and 20 mm in size. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting polyps measuring 10-20 mm. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 2020 to find studies that directly compared CSP to HSP for polyps larger than 10 mm. Our main focus was on assessing the risk of delayed bleeding after polypectomy; a secondary focus was the incidence of any adverse events that required medical intervention post procedure. Our search yielded three comparative studies, two observational studies, and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), together encompassing 1,193 polypectomy procedures. Of these, 485 were performed using CSP and 708 with HSP. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) was 0.36 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.02, 7.13), with a Cochran Q test P-value of 0.11 and an I2 of 53%. For the risk of any adverse events necessitating medical care, the pooled OR was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.01, 2.29), with a Cochran Q test P-value of 0.21 and an I2 of 35%. The quality of the two observational studies was deemed moderate, and the RCT was only available in abstract form, preventing quality assessment. Our analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in the incidence of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding or other adverse events requiring medical attention between CSP and HSP for polyps measuring 10-20 mm.

Hot snare polypectomy using bipolar snare: an easy and feasible approach for intermediate-sized colorectal lesions

Hot snare polypectomy using bipolar snare: an easy and feasible approach for intermediate-sized colorectal lesions

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.

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.

Endoscopic band ligation versus hot snare resection for hyperplastic gastric polyps in cirrhotic patients.

Managing patients with liver cirrhosis and gastric hyperplastic polyps (GHPs) is challenging. Despite being the standard technique for resection of GHPs, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is risky in the setting of coagulation disorders associated with liver cirrhosis. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic band ligation (EBL), compared to HSP in resecting GHPs in cirrhotic patients. One hundred consecutive adults with liver cirrhosis and sessile or pedunculated GHPs were enrolled from December 2018 to December 2020. Cases were non-blindly randomized (1 : 1) to two groups to have GHPs managed by either EBL (group I) or HSP (group II). Data of demographic, clinical, and pathological factors, hospitalization expenses and outcomes of both treatment maneuvers were collected and statistically analyzed. Upper endoscopy was repeated for all patients at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment for recurrence detection. Between the two procedures, the mean operational time was significantly shorter in the EBL than the HSP group (15.1 ±3.80 min vs. 36.6 ±6.72 min, p < 0.001). Concerning complications, 94% of EBL cases had reported no complications compared to 78% with HSP. Bleeding occurred only with HSP (20%) with urgent need for adrenaline and/or argon plasma coagulation (p = 0.003). Regarding cost, it was significantly lower in EBL than HSP (280 ±2.02 EGP vs. 390 ±181.8 EGP, p < 0.001). However, the recurrence rate of GHPs and number of needed sessions were not significantly different. EBL proved to be a safer, more rapid, and economic maneuver when compared to HSP on resecting GHPs in patients with liver cirrhosis.

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.

HOT VERSUS COLD SNARE FOR COLORECTAL POLYPECTOMIES SIZED UP TO 10MM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and prevention relies on screening programs with resection complete resection of neoplastic lesions. We aimed to evaluate the best snare polypectomy technique for colorectal lesions up to 10 mm, focusing on complete resection rate, and adverse events. A comprehensive search using electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing hot versus cold snare resection for polyps sized up to 10 mm, and following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was performed. Outcomes included complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, polypectomy, procedure times, immediate, delayed bleeding, and perforation. Nineteen RCTs involving 8720 patients and 17588 polyps were included. Hot snare polypectomy showed a higher complete resection rate (RD, 0.02; 95%CI [+0.00,0.04]; P=0.03; I 2=63%), but also a higher rate of delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.01]; P=0.01; I 2=0%), and severe delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.00]; P=0.04; I 2=0%). Cold Snare was associated with shorter polypectomy time (MD -46.89 seconds; 95%CI [-62.99, -30.79]; P<0.00001; I 2=90%) and shorter total colonoscopy time (MD -7.17 minutes; 95%CI [-9.10, -5.25]; P<0.00001; I 2=41%). No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rate or immediate bleeding. Hot snare polypectomy presents a slightly higher complete resection rate, but, as it is associated with a longer procedure time and a higher rate of delayed bleeding compared to Cold Snare, it cannot be recommended as the gold standard approach. Individual analysis and personal experience should be considered when selecting the best approach.

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

A novel low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for 10-14mm colorectal adenomas: An ex vivo and a clinical prospective feasibility study (SHARP trial).

Hot snare polypectomy using blend or coagulation current is widely used; however, it causes deeper tissue heat injury, leading to adverse events. We hypothesized that hot polypectomy using low-power pure cut current (PureCut, effect 1 10W) could reduce deeper tissue heat injury. We conducted animal experiments to evaluate the deeper tissue heat injury and conducted a prospective clinical study to examine its cutting ability. In a porcine rectum, hot polypectomy using Blend current (EndoCut, effect 3 40W) and low-power pure cut current was performed. The deepest part of heat destruction and thickness of the non-burned submucosal layer were evaluated histologically. Based on the results, we performed low-power pure cut current hot polypectomy for 10-14mm adenoma. The primary endpoint was complete resection defined as one-piece resection with negative for adenoma in quadrant biopsies from the defect margin. In experiments, all low-power pure-cut resections were limited within the submucosal layer whereas blend current resections coagulated the muscular layer in 13% (3/23). The remaining submucosal layer was thicker in low-power pure cut current than in blend current resections. In the clinical study, low-power pure-cut hot polypectomy removed all 100 enrolled polyps. For 98 pathologically neoplastic polyps, complete resection was achieved in 84 (85.7%, 95% confidence interval, 77-92%). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was not more than 15% below the pre-defined threshold of 86.6%. No severe adverse events occurred. A novel low-power pure-cut hot polypectomy may be feasible for adenoma measuring 10-14mm. (UMIN000037678).

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.