Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps

Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retriev...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Digestion 2011-01, Vol.84 (1), p.78-81
Hauptverfasser: Ichise, Yasuyuki, Horiuchi, Akira, Nakayama, Yoshiko, Tanaka, Naoki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 81
container_issue 1
container_start_page 78
container_title Digestion
container_volume 84
creator Ichise, Yasuyuki
Horiuchi, Akira
Nakayama, Yoshiko
Tanaka, Naoki
description Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients’ demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p < 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps.
doi_str_mv 10.1159/000323959
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_878637143</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2404933051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-52fcbcd5159a948b55cbc6fba9a238e754f3edb25f26e3a1b9a6b3c3b90b9a813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0UtLxDAQAOAgiruuHryLFC_ioZpnmxxl8QULLq6eS9Im0rVtatIurL_elH2AnpLJfBmYGQDOEbxFiIk7CCHBRDBxAMaIYhQLnqSHYAwhwjHmmIzAiffLIRSUHIMRRlRQSNIx6ObO-lbnXbnS0ZtsCluXP7qIprZupSu9bSJrQlQV0aKRTkdzW60Hb-t1FHhINSvddKVtZPUnaayLFrWsquG3deF1B_wpODKy8vpse07Ax-PD-_Q5nr0-vUzvZ3FOBO9ihk2u8oKFFqWgXDEWwsQoKSQmXKeMGqILhZnBiSYSKSETRXKiBAxXjsgEXG_qts5-99p3WV36XFeVbLTtfcbTlCKIIA3y6p9c2t6FlgbEE5IiSgK62aA8zMw7bbLWlbV06wzBbFhEtl9EsJfbgr2qdbGXu8kHcLEBX9J9arcH2_-_rZKNvg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>878637143</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps</title><source>Karger Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ichise, Yasuyuki ; Horiuchi, Akira ; Nakayama, Yoshiko ; Tanaka, Naoki</creator><creatorcontrib>Ichise, Yasuyuki ; Horiuchi, Akira ; Nakayama, Yoshiko ; Tanaka, Naoki</creatorcontrib><description>Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients’ demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p &lt; 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-2823</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-9867</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1159/000323959</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21494037</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DIGEBW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG</publisher><subject>Aged ; Colonic Polyps - surgery ; Colonoscopy - methods ; Electrocoagulation ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Original Paper ; Postoperative Complications ; Proctoscopy - methods ; Prospective Studies ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Digestion, 2011-01, Vol.84 (1), p.78-81</ispartof><rights>2011 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.</rights><rights>Copyright (c) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-52fcbcd5159a948b55cbc6fba9a238e754f3edb25f26e3a1b9a6b3c3b90b9a813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-52fcbcd5159a948b55cbc6fba9a238e754f3edb25f26e3a1b9a6b3c3b90b9a813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,2423,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21494037$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ichise, Yasuyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horiuchi, Akira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakayama, Yoshiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanaka, Naoki</creatorcontrib><title>Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps</title><title>Digestion</title><addtitle>Digestion</addtitle><description>Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients’ demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p &lt; 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Colonic Polyps - surgery</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Electrocoagulation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Proctoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0012-2823</issn><issn>1421-9867</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0UtLxDAQAOAgiruuHryLFC_ioZpnmxxl8QULLq6eS9Im0rVtatIurL_elH2AnpLJfBmYGQDOEbxFiIk7CCHBRDBxAMaIYhQLnqSHYAwhwjHmmIzAiffLIRSUHIMRRlRQSNIx6ObO-lbnXbnS0ZtsCluXP7qIprZupSu9bSJrQlQV0aKRTkdzW60Hb-t1FHhINSvddKVtZPUnaayLFrWsquG3deF1B_wpODKy8vpse07Ax-PD-_Q5nr0-vUzvZ3FOBO9ihk2u8oKFFqWgXDEWwsQoKSQmXKeMGqILhZnBiSYSKSETRXKiBAxXjsgEXG_qts5-99p3WV36XFeVbLTtfcbTlCKIIA3y6p9c2t6FlgbEE5IiSgK62aA8zMw7bbLWlbV06wzBbFhEtl9EsJfbgr2qdbGXu8kHcLEBX9J9arcH2_-_rZKNvg</recordid><startdate>20110101</startdate><enddate>20110101</enddate><creator>Ichise, Yasuyuki</creator><creator>Horiuchi, Akira</creator><creator>Nakayama, Yoshiko</creator><creator>Tanaka, Naoki</creator><general>S. Karger AG</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110101</creationdate><title>Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps</title><author>Ichise, Yasuyuki ; Horiuchi, Akira ; Nakayama, Yoshiko ; Tanaka, Naoki</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-52fcbcd5159a948b55cbc6fba9a238e754f3edb25f26e3a1b9a6b3c3b90b9a813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Colonic Polyps - surgery</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Electrocoagulation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Proctoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ichise, Yasuyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horiuchi, Akira</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakayama, Yoshiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tanaka, Naoki</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Digestion</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ichise, Yasuyuki</au><au>Horiuchi, Akira</au><au>Nakayama, Yoshiko</au><au>Tanaka, Naoki</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps</atitle><jtitle>Digestion</jtitle><addtitle>Digestion</addtitle><date>2011-01-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>78</spage><epage>81</epage><pages>78-81</pages><issn>0012-2823</issn><eissn>1421-9867</eissn><coden>DIGEBW</coden><abstract>Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients’ demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p &lt; 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps.</abstract><cop>Basel, Switzerland</cop><pub>S. Karger AG</pub><pmid>21494037</pmid><doi>10.1159/000323959</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-2823
ispartof Digestion, 2011-01, Vol.84 (1), p.78-81
issn 0012-2823
1421-9867
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_878637143
source Karger Journals; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Colonic Polyps - surgery
Colonoscopy - methods
Electrocoagulation
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Original Paper
Postoperative Complications
Proctoscopy - methods
Prospective Studies
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
title Prospective Randomized Comparison of Cold Snare Polypectomy and Conventional Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T15%3A09%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective%20Randomized%20Comparison%20of%20Cold%20Snare%20Polypectomy%20and%20Conventional%20Polypectomy%20for%20Small%20Colorectal%20Polyps&rft.jtitle=Digestion&rft.au=Ichise,%20Yasuyuki&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=78&rft.epage=81&rft.pages=78-81&rft.issn=0012-2823&rft.eissn=1421-9867&rft.coden=DIGEBW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159/000323959&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2404933051%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=878637143&rft_id=info:pmid/21494037&rfr_iscdi=true