Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Background/Aims: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical endoscopy 2024-11, Vol.57 (6), p.747 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | kor |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 747 |
container_title | Clinical endoscopy |
container_volume | 57 |
creator | Vishali Moond Priyadarshini Loganathan Sheza Malik Dushyant Singh Dahiya Babu P. Mohan Daryl Ramai Michele Mcginnis Deepak Madhu Mohammad Bilal Aasma Shaukat Saurabh Chandan |
description | Background/Aims: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results: The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>kiss</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kiss_primary_4138322</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><kiss_id>4138322</kiss_id><sourcerecordid>4138322</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kiss_primary_41383223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9j0FqwzAQRbVIIab1CbKZCxgcSyQhW9OQA3QfprIMIiONmbEL7hl66Cil667-8N__H2Zjqq6zrulc225NrRo_W-eO1u4PbWV-eqYBNKMEmJjWKfiZ0wpfQXRR8E8a8sDqeYoe0uJZkUCClmDkDCMLaEKiZ5aluAX_LukZEFKYscGMtGpU4BEEy1qK32EohTwLE5Vzloikb-ZlLBLqP301u8v7R39t7lH1NklMKOvN7e3Jlpf-pw8hDFFM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><source>KoreaMed Synapse</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>KoreaMed Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Vishali Moond ; Priyadarshini Loganathan ; Sheza Malik ; Dushyant Singh Dahiya ; Babu P. Mohan ; Daryl Ramai ; Michele Mcginnis ; Deepak Madhu ; Mohammad Bilal ; Aasma Shaukat ; Saurabh Chandan</creator><creatorcontrib>Vishali Moond ; Priyadarshini Loganathan ; Sheza Malik ; Dushyant Singh Dahiya ; Babu P. Mohan ; Daryl Ramai ; Michele Mcginnis ; Deepak Madhu ; Mohammad Bilal ; Aasma Shaukat ; Saurabh Chandan</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Aims: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results: The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2234-2400</identifier><language>kor</language><publisher>대한소화기내시경학회</publisher><subject>Carcinoma ; Colonic ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal ; Polyps</subject><ispartof>Clinical endoscopy, 2024-11, Vol.57 (6), p.747</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vishali Moond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Priyadarshini Loganathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheza Malik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dushyant Singh Dahiya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babu P. Mohan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daryl Ramai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michele Mcginnis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deepak Madhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohammad Bilal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aasma Shaukat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saurabh Chandan</creatorcontrib><title>Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><title>Clinical endoscopy</title><addtitle>Clinical Endoscopy</addtitle><description>Background/Aims: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results: The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.</description><subject>Carcinoma</subject><subject>Colonic</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colorectal</subject><subject>Polyps</subject><issn>2234-2400</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9j0FqwzAQRbVIIab1CbKZCxgcSyQhW9OQA3QfprIMIiONmbEL7hl66Cil667-8N__H2Zjqq6zrulc225NrRo_W-eO1u4PbWV-eqYBNKMEmJjWKfiZ0wpfQXRR8E8a8sDqeYoe0uJZkUCClmDkDCMLaEKiZ5aluAX_LukZEFKYscGMtGpU4BEEy1qK32EohTwLE5Vzloikb-ZlLBLqP301u8v7R39t7lH1NklMKOvN7e3Jlpf-pw8hDFFM</recordid><startdate>20241130</startdate><enddate>20241130</enddate><creator>Vishali Moond</creator><creator>Priyadarshini Loganathan</creator><creator>Sheza Malik</creator><creator>Dushyant Singh Dahiya</creator><creator>Babu P. Mohan</creator><creator>Daryl Ramai</creator><creator>Michele Mcginnis</creator><creator>Deepak Madhu</creator><creator>Mohammad Bilal</creator><creator>Aasma Shaukat</creator><creator>Saurabh Chandan</creator><general>대한소화기내시경학회</general><scope>HZB</scope><scope>Q5X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241130</creationdate><title>Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><author>Vishali Moond ; Priyadarshini Loganathan ; Sheza Malik ; Dushyant Singh Dahiya ; Babu P. Mohan ; Daryl Ramai ; Michele Mcginnis ; Deepak Madhu ; Mohammad Bilal ; Aasma Shaukat ; Saurabh Chandan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kiss_primary_41383223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>kor</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Carcinoma</topic><topic>Colonic</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colorectal</topic><topic>Polyps</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vishali Moond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Priyadarshini Loganathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheza Malik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dushyant Singh Dahiya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Babu P. Mohan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daryl Ramai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michele Mcginnis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deepak Madhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohammad Bilal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aasma Shaukat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saurabh Chandan</creatorcontrib><collection>Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS)</collection><collection>Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS) B-Type</collection><jtitle>Clinical endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vishali Moond</au><au>Priyadarshini Loganathan</au><au>Sheza Malik</au><au>Dushyant Singh Dahiya</au><au>Babu P. Mohan</au><au>Daryl Ramai</au><au>Michele Mcginnis</au><au>Deepak Madhu</au><au>Mohammad Bilal</au><au>Aasma Shaukat</au><au>Saurabh Chandan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</atitle><jtitle>Clinical endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Clinical Endoscopy</addtitle><date>2024-11-30</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>747</spage><pages>747-</pages><issn>2234-2400</issn><abstract>Background/Aims: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results: The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.</abstract><pub>대한소화기내시경학회</pub><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2234-2400 |
ispartof | Clinical endoscopy, 2024-11, Vol.57 (6), p.747 |
issn | 2234-2400 |
language | kor |
recordid | cdi_kiss_primary_4138322 |
source | KoreaMed Synapse; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; KoreaMed Open Access; PubMed Central |
subjects | Carcinoma Colonic Colonoscopy Colorectal Polyps |
title | Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T00%3A09%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cold%20snare%20polypectomy%20versus%20cold%20endoscopic%20mucosal%20resection%20for%20small%20colorectal%20polyps:%20a%20meta-analysis%20of%20randomized%20controlled%20trials&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20endoscopy&rft.au=Vishali%20Moond&rft.date=2024-11-30&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=747&rft.pages=747-&rft.issn=2234-2400&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckiss%3E4138322%3C/kiss%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_kiss_id=4138322&rfr_iscdi=true |