Suppr超能文献

冷圈套息肉切除术与传统息肉切除术治疗结直肠小息肉的前瞻性随机比较。

Prospective randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps.

机构信息

Digestive Disease Center, Showa Inan General Hospital, Komagane, Japan.

出版信息

Digestion. 2011;84(1):78-81. doi: 10.1159/000323959. Epub 2011 Apr 14.

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 < 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.

摘要

背景与目的

目前,对于直径小于 8mm 的结直肠小息肉,仍没有一种理想的切除方法。本研究旨在比较冷圈套息肉切除术(冷切除术)与传统电切圈套息肉切除术(热切除术)在操作时间、息肉取出难易程度、出血及术后症状等方面的差异。

方法

将直径小于 8mm 的结直肠息肉患者随机分为冷圈套息肉切除术组(冷切组,n=40,共 101 枚息肉)和传统电切圈套息肉切除术组(热切组,n=40,共 104 枚息肉)。主要观察指标为术后 2 周内的腹部症状。次要观察指标为息肉的回收率和出血率。

结果

80 例患者被随机分为两组,冷切组 40 例(101 枚息肉),热切组 40 例(104 枚息肉)。两组患者的一般资料、息肉数量和大小相似。与热切组相比,冷切组的操作时间明显缩短(18 分钟 vs. 25 分钟,p<0.0001)。两组的完全息肉回收率相同[96%(97/101)vs. 96%(100/104)]。两组均无需要止血的出血病例。热切组术后腹痛症状更常见(20%,8/40),冷切组少见(2.5%,1/40),差异有统计学意义(p=0.029)。

结论

与传统电切圈套息肉切除术相比,冷圈套息肉切除术在操作时间和术后腹痛症状方面具有优势。两种方法在出血风险和完全息肉回收率方面基本相同。因此,冷圈套息肉切除术是切除小的结直肠息肉的首选方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验