Small Colorectal Polyps Research Articles

Comparison of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

Incomplete resection rates vary among endoscopists performing cold snare polypectomy. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) is the technique of cold resection after submucosal injection to reduce incomplete resection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR for small colorectal polyps compared to hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR). Preplanned sample size required 70 polyps to CS-EMR group or HS-EMR group, respectively. Patients with polyps sized 6–9 mm were randomly allocated to either the CS-EMR or the HS-EMR group. The primary outcome was residual or recurrent adenoma (RAA) rate. A total of 70 and 68 polyps were resected using CS-EMR and HS-EMR, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population, the RAA rate was 0% in the CS-EMR group and 1.5% in the HS-EMR group (risk difference [RD], − 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 4.34 to 1.39). En bloc resection rate was 98.6% and 98.5% (RD, − 0.04; 95% CI − 4.12 to 4.02); the R0 resection rate was 55.7% and 82.4% (RD, − 27.80; 95% CI − 42.50 to − 13.10). The total procedure time was 172 s (IQR, 158–189) in the CS-EMR group and 186 s (IQR, 147–216) in the HS-EMR group (median difference, − 14; 95% CI − 32 to 2). Delayed bleeding was 2.9% vs 1.5% (RD, 1.37; 95% CI − 3.47 to 6.21) in both groups, respectively. CS-EMR was non-inferior to HS-EMR for the treatment of small colorectal polyps. CS-EMR can be considered one of the standard methods for the removal of colorectal polyps sized 6–9 mm.

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

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). 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. 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). 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.

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.

Cold sub-mucosal injection versus traditional cold snare polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: Asystematic review and meta-analysis.

The guidelines recommend conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP) for diminutive and small colorectal polyps (≤ 10mm). However, it remains unclear whether CSP with sub-mucosal injection (SI-CSP) achieves comparable efficacy to C-CSP for managing these lesions. This study compares SI-CSP with C-CSP for patients with diminutive and small colorectal polyps. An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve articles comparing resection outcomes between SI-CSP and C-CSP in diminutive and small colorectal polyps (registration number INPLASY2023100096). Our primary outcomes of interest were the complete resection rate (CRR), complications (namely immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding and perforation) and polypectomy time. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were employed for continuous variables, while odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were calculated for categorical variables. Data was analyzed using a random effects model and the I2 test was utilized to assess heterogeneity. Eight studies involving 1470 patients with 2223 polyps were included in our analysis. The CRR was not significantly higher in the SI-CSP group, with an OR of 95% CI 0.50 (0.22, 1.15). The incidences of immediate bleeding (OR 95% CI 0.60 [0.26-1.40]) and delayed bleeding (OR 95% CI 0.88 [0.32-2.42]) did not differ significantly between the two groups. On average, the mean polypectomy time was 64.75seconds shorter in the C-CSP group (95% CI, - 102.96 to - 26.53). Notably, no perforation events were reported in the included studies. The use of SI-CSP was not superior to C-CSP in managing diminutive and small colorectal polyps and the procedure required significantly more time.

Artificial Intelligence for Real-Time Prediction of the Histology of Colorectal Polyps by General Endoscopists.

Real-time prediction of histologic features of small colorectal polyps may prevent resection and/or pathologic evaluation and therefore decrease colonoscopy costs. Previous studies showed that computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) was highly accurate, though it did not outperform expert endoscopists. To assess the diagnostic performance of histologic predictions by general endoscopists before and after assistance from CADx in a real-life setting. Prospective, multicenter, single-group study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04437615). 6 centers across the United States. 1252 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy and 49 general endoscopists with variable experience in real-time prediction of polyp histologic features. Real-time use of CADx during routine colonoscopy. The primary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of CADx-unassisted and CADx-assisted histologic predictions for adenomas measuring 5 mm or less. For clinical purposes, additional estimates according to location and confidence level were provided. The CADx device made a diagnosis for 2695 polyps measuring 5 mm or less (96%) in 1252 patients. There was no difference in sensitivity between the unassisted and assisted groups (90.7% vs. 90.8%; P = 0.52). Specificity was higher in the CADx-assisted group (59.5% vs. 64.7%; P < 0.001). Among all 2695 polyps measuring 5 mm or less, 88.2% and 86.1% (P < 0.001) in the CADx-assisted and unassisted groups, respectively, could be resected and discarded without pathologic evaluation. Among 743 rectosigmoid polyps measuring 5 mm or less, 49.5% and 47.9% (P < 0.001) in the CADx-assisted and unassisted groups, respectively, could be left in situ without resection. Decision making based on CADx might differ outside a clinical trial. CADx assistance did not result in increased sensitivity of optical diagnosis. Despite a slight increase, the specificity of CADx-assisted diagnosis remained suboptimal. Olympus America Corporation served as the clinical study sponsor.

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.

Implementing narrow banding imaging with dual focus magnification for histological prediction of small rectosigmoid polyps in Vietnamese setting.

Small rectosigmoid colorectal polyps (<10 mm) are prevalent, with a low prevalence of advanced neoplastic lesions. The "diagnose-and-leave" strategy, employing narrow band imaging (NBI), is gaining popularity for its safety and cost-effectiveness by reducing polypectomy complications and minimizing histopathology expenses. This study assessed the diagnostic efficacy of NBI with dual focus (DF) magnification for real-time neoplastic prediction of rectosigmoid polyps and explored the feasibility of implementing this strategy in Vietnam. In a prospective single-center study, 307 rectosigmoid polyps from 245 patients were analyzed using three consecutive endoscopic modes: white light endoscopy (WLE), NBI, and NBI-DF. Endoscopists assessed polyps for size, location, macroscopic shape,optical diagnosis, and confidence levels before histopathological evaluation. High confidence was assigned when the polyp exhibited all features of a single histology type. Predictions were compared with final histopathology results. Of the total, 237 (77.2%) were diminutive (≤5 mm) polyps, and 18 (5.8%) were advanced neoplastic lesions. WLE + NBI and WLE + NBI + NBI-DF exhibited significantly higher accuracy compared to WLE (88.6% and 90.2% vs 74.2%, P < 0.01). For diminutive polyps, the DF mode significantly increased the rate of high-confidence optical diagnoses (89.1% vs 94.9%, P < 0.001). WLE + NBI + NBI-DF demonstrated high sensitivity (90.1%), specificity (95.5%), and negative predictive value (93.4%) in high-confidence predictions, enabling the implementation of the "diagnose-and-leave" strategy. This approach would have reduced 58.2% of unnecessary polypectomies without missing any advanced neoplastic lesions. NBI and DF modes provide accurate neoplastic predictions for rectosigmoid polyps. For diminutive polyps, DF magnification improves the confidence level of the optical diagnosis, allowing the safe implementation of the "diagnose-and-leave" strategy.

Effectiveness of Dual-Focus Magnification on Confidence Levels in Optical Diagnosis of Small Colorectal Polyps.

Background and objectives Achieving accurate real-time optical diagnoses of colorectal polyps with high-confidence predictions is crucial for appropriate decision-making in daily practice. The dual-focus (DF) magnification mode helps endoscopists scrutinize subtle features of polyp surfaces and vessel patterns. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the impact of DF imaging on enhancing the rate of high-confidence narrow-band imaging (NBI)-based optical diagnosis. Methods Consecutive adult patients who underwent colonoscopy and had small colorectal polyps (<10 mm) were enrolled between September 2022 and May 2023. The optical diagnosis of each polyp was evaluated during colonoscopy in two stages by the same endoscopist, utilizing NBI with DF magnification (NDB-DF). A confidence level was assigned to each prediction. High confidence was indicated by clinical judgment when a polyp exhibited distinctive features associated solely with one histological subtype and lacked characteristics of any other subtype. All procedures were carried out with a prototype 190 series Exera III NBI system (Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with DFmagnification. Results The study included 413 patients with 623 polyps, comprising 483 ≤ 5 mm and 140 measuring 6-9 mm. The majority were low-grade adenomas (343 lesions), with 17 identified as high-grade adenomas, and none characterized as deep submucosal invasive carcinomas. NBI-DF significantly improved the rate of high-confidence optical diagnoses compared to NBI for both ≤ 5 mm polyps (93.1% vs. 87.5%, p < 0.0001) and 6-9 mm polyps (97.9% vs. 94.2%, p = 0.03). Furthermore, DF significantly facilitated the assessment of microvessel and surface pattern criteria (p < 0.01). Conclusion DF magnification markedly enhanced the rate of high-confidence NBI-based optical predictions for small colorectal polyps. This technique demonstrates the potential for improving the diagnostic yield in real-time optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps in the Vietnamese setting.

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.

Natural History of Colorectal Polyps Undergoing Longitudinal in Vivo CT Colonography Surveillance.

Background The natural history of colorectal polyps is not well characterized due to clinical standards of care and other practical constraints limiting in vivo longitudinal surveillance. Established CT colonography (CTC) clinical screening protocols allow surveillance of small (6-9 mm) polyps. Purpose To assess the natural history of colorectal polyps followed with CTC in a clinical screening program, with histopathologic correlation for resected polyps. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, CTC was used to longitudinally monitor small colorectal polyps in asymptomatic adult patients from April 1, 2004, to August 31, 2020. All patients underwent at least two CTC examinations. Polyp growth patterns across multiple time points were analyzed, with histopathologic context for resected polyps. Regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of advanced histopathology. Results In this study of 475 asymptomatic adult patients (mean age, 56.9 years ± 6.7 [SD]; 263 men), 639 unique polyps (mean initial diameter, 6.3 mm; volume, 50.2 mm3) were followed for a mean of 5.1 years ± 2.9. Of these 639 polyps, 398 (62.3%) underwent resection and histopathologic evaluation, and 41 (6.4%) proved to be histopathologically advanced (adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, or villous content), including two cancers and 38 tubulovillous adenomas. Advanced polyps showed mean volume growth of +178% per year (752% per year for adenocarcinomas) compared with +33% per year for nonadvanced polyps and -3% per year for unresected, unretrieved, or resolved polyps (P < .001). In addition, 90% of histologically advanced polyps achieved a volume of 100 mm3 and/or volume growth rate of 100% per year, compared with 29% of nonadvanced and 16% of unresected or resolved polyps (P < .001). Polyp volume-to-diameter ratio was also significantly greater for advanced polyps. For polyps observed at three or more time points, most advanced polyps demonstrated an initial slower growth interval, followed by a period of more rapid growth. Conclusion Small colorectal polyps ultimately proving to be histopathologically advanced neoplasms demonstrated substantially faster growth and attained greater overall size compared with nonadvanced polyps. Clinical trial registration no. NCT00204867 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dachman in this issue.

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.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of cold snare polypectomy using a thin-wire snare and thick-wire snare for small colorectal polyps

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of cold snare polypectomy using a thin-wire snare and thick-wire snare for small colorectal polyps

Dietary restriction after cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyp for prevention of delayed bleeding.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for small colorectal polyps is a safe technique; however, there is little evidence on whether dietary restriction after CSP is essential. This study aimed to determine whether dietary restriction after CSP is necessary to prevent delayed bleeding. This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial conducted between November 2021 and March 2022. Patients with non-pedunculated small colorectal polyps (<10 mm) and who did not take anticoagulants were randomly allocated to two groups: (i) the normal diet (ND) group, and (ii) the low-residue diet (LRD) group. The ND group was instructed to eat anything after CSP, whereas the LRD group was advised to take LRD for 3 days after CSP. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of delayed major bleeding that needed endoscopic hemostasis. A total of 193 patients (average 57.5 years old, 51.9% male) were enrolled in the study. Subsequently, 97 and 96 patients were allocated to the ND and LRD group, respectively. The occurrence of delayed major bleeding was 1.0% in the ND group and 2.1% in the LRD group (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to 2.4%; difference: -1.1%), which showed the non-inferiority of the ND group. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups with respect to the occurrence of minor delayed bleeding (3.1% and 4.2%, respectively; difference: -1.1% [95% CI: -6.4% to 4.2%]). Dietary restriction after CSP for low-bleeding-risk colorectal polyps is not necessary for the prevention of delayed bleeding (Registration number: UMIN000045669).

Growth rates and histopathological outcomes of small (6–9 mm) colorectal polyps based on CT colonography surveillance and endoscopic removal

Background and aimsThe natural history of small polyps is not well established and rests on limited evidence from barium enema studies decades ago. Patients with one or two small polyps...

Economic impact of implementing optical diagnosis with a "resect and discard" strategy within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: Findings from the DISCARD3 study.

Advances in endoscopic technology, such as narrow band imaging and high definition colonoscopes, offer the potential for optical diagnosis (OD) with a "resect and discard" (RD) strategy for diminutive (≤5mm) and small (6-9mm) colorectal polyps. This could help alleviate the huge cost and time burden required for histopathology. The aim of this study is to conduct an economic analysis of a RD strategy within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). A decision tree was designed to compare a RD strategy with standard histopathology for patients included in the DISCARD3 study and was extrapolated to a national BCSP patient cohort. Of the 525 patients in the DISCARD3 study, 354 were assessed for surveillance intervals (after excluding cases with colorectal cancer and at least one polyp >10 mm). 269/354 cases had polyps of which, 182 had only diminutive polyps, 77 had both small and diminutive polyps, and 10 had only small polyps. Surveillance interval concordance was 97.9% in patients with at least 1 diminutive polyp and 98.7% in patients with at least 1 diminutive or small polyp. In DISCARD3, a RD approach would reduce overall direct healthcare costs by £35,468.8 (-72.3%) for patients with diminutive polyps or by £42,666.2 (-75.0%) for patients with diminutive or small polyps. When extrapolated to the entire English BCSP, the annual savings are almost £2.4m for patients with diminutive polyps or £3.4m for patients with diminutive or small polyps, after adjusting for the costs of an OD quality assurance process (QAP). OD with a RD strategy for diminutive and small polyps during BCSP colonoscopy would offer substantial cost savings without adversly affecting surveillance interval concordance.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy of Colorectal Polyps 10–15 mm with a Hybrid Snare: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study

Introduction: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe and effective procedure for small colorectal polyps ≤9 mm. There are only limited data regarding CSP of larger neoplastic lesions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CSP for polyps between 10 and 15 mm in size. Methods: In this prospective single-arm observational pilot study, patients with a least one polyp 10–15 mm were included. These polyps were preferably removed by CSP using a dedicated hybrid snare. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate (CRR) determined by pathologically negative margins of the specimen and no neoplastic tissue obtained from biopsies of the resection site margin. Secondary outcomes were en bloc resection rate, failure of CSP, and incidence of adverse events. Results: A total of 61 neoplastic polyps were removed from 39 patients. Overall CRR was 80.3% (49/61). CSP was feasible in 78.7% (48/61) of polyps and the CRR in this group was 85.4% (41/48). When CSP failed (13/61; 21.3%), lesions were successfully resected by immediate HSP using the same snare with a CRR of 61.5% (8/13) in this group. One patient presented delayed hemorrhage after HSP of a polyp but successful hemostasis was achieved with two hemoclips. No other adverse events occurred. No recurrence was seen on follow-up colonoscopy in cases with incomplete resected polyps. Conclusion: CSP seems to be efficient and safe in removing colorectal polyps up to 15 mm. A hybrid snare seems to be particularly advantageous for these polyps as it allows immediate conversion to HSP if CSP might fail in larger polyps. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04464837).

Utility of narrow-band imaging with or without dual focus magnification in neoplastic prediction of small colorectal polyps: a Vietnamese experience.

Accurate neoplastic prediction can significantly decrease costs associated with pathology and unnecessary colorectal polypectomies. Narrow band imaging (NBI) and dual-focus (DF) mode are promising emerging optical technologies for recognizing neoplastic features of colorectal polyps digitally. This study aimed to clarify the clinical usefulness of NBI with and without DF assistance in the neoplastic prediction of small colorectal polyps (<10 mm). This cross-sectional study included 530 small colorectal polyps from 343 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Medical Center from September 2020 to May 2021. Each polyp was endoscopically diagnosed in three successive steps using white-light endoscopy (WLE), NBI, and NBI-DF and retrieved for histopathological assessment. The diagnostic accuracy of each modality was evaluated with reference to histopathology. There were 295 neoplastic polyps and 235 non-neoplastic polyps. The overall accuracies of WLE, WLE+NBI, and WLE+NBI+NBI-DF in the neoplastic prediction of colorectal polyps were 70.8%, 87.4%, and 90.8%, respectively (p<0.001). The accuracy of WLE+NBI+NBI-DF was significantly higher than that of WLE+NBI in the polyp size ≤5 mm subgroup (87.3% vs. 90.1%, p<0.001). NBI improved the real-time neoplastic prediction of small colorectal polyps. The DF mode was especially useful in polyps ≤5 mm in size.

The efficacy and safety of cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for endoscopic removal of small colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The optimal technique for removing small colorectal polyps ranging from 5 to 10mm in size remains uncertain. In order to compare the efficacy and adverse events between cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for removing small polyps, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials. We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from 1998 to May 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting small colorectal polyps. The primary outcome measure was the incomplete resection rate (IRR). Seven studies that met our study criteria, with a total of 3178 included polyps, were included in our analysis. The incomplete resection rate (IRR) was found to be significantly higher in the CSP group compared to the HSP group (risk ratio [RR] 1.57 [1.17-2.11], P = 0.003). Although the CSP group had a higher local recurrence rate than the HSP group, the difference was not statistically significant (RR: 3.98 [0.66-23.84], P = 0.13). The polyp retrieval rates were not significantly different between the two groups (RR: 1.00 [0.99-1], P = 0.22). Perforation was not reported or mentioned in any of the seven studies. The overall immediate bleeding rate was significantly higher in the CSP group than the HSP group (RR: 2.26 [1.63-3.14], P < 0.001), but immediate postpolypectomy bleeding requiring additional intervention was similar between the groups (RR: 1.08 [0.54-2.17], P = 0.82). The delayed bleeding rate (RR: 0.83 [0.45-1.55], P = 0.56) and specific polypectomy time (RR: -0.46 [-1.05-0.12], P = 0.12) were also similar between the groups. The meta-analysis shows a significantly higher IRR for CSP compared with HSP when removing small polyps.

Cold Snare Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps—Quick and Safe

Overall, these data suggest that CSP is safer than HSP for the removal of small, 4-10-mm polyps. CSP also obviates the need to prepare an electro-surgical generator or lifting solution for HSP, resulting in faster polypectomy and procedure times. Concerns about incomplete histologic resection appear to be unfounded, as there was no difference in successful tissue retrieval, en bloc resection, or complete histologic resection between groups. Limitations include the lack of endoscopic blinding and follow-up colonoscopy to confirm the bleeding site, particularly in patients who underwent concurrent large polyp resection. Nevertheless, these findings support the enthusiasm for CSP which, based on an improved safety and efficiency profile, appears poised to replace HSP for the routine resection of small colo-rectal polyps.

A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost. The search criteria included randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and HSP for small colorectal polyps ≤10 mm and the articles were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), and meta-analysis was performed with outcomes measured using pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to calculate the OR. We selected a total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 11601 polyps for analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incomplete resection rate between CSP and HSP (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.88-1.73, p-value: 0.27; I2: 51%), en bloc resection rate (OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.38-1.13; p: 0.13; I2: 60%), and polyp retrieval rate (OR:0.97; 95%CI: 0.59-1.57; p: 0.89; I2: 17%). For safety endpoints, there is no statistically significant difference in intraprocedural bleeding rate between CSP and HSP per patient analysis (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 0.74-7.54; p: 0.95; I2: 74%) and per polyp basis (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.72-4.72; p: 0.20; I2: 85%). CSP had lower OR for the delayed bleeding outcome when compared with the HSP group per patient basis (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.2-0.86; p: 0.02; I2: 25%), but not in the per polyp analysis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.12-3; p: 0.53; I2: 0%). Total polypectomy time was significantly shorter in the CSP group (mean difference: -0.81 minutes; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.66; p:<0.00001; I2: 0%). Thus, CSP is both an efficacious and safe method for removing small colorectal polyps. Therefore, it can be recommended as a suitable alternative to HSP for the removal of small colorectal polyps. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate any long-term differences between the two methodssuch as polyp recurrence rates.