• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

冷圈套息肉切除术与冷活检钳息肉切除术联合双活检技术用于切除微小结直肠息肉的前瞻性随机研究。

Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct;108(10):1593-600. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.302. Epub 2013 Sep 17.

DOI:10.1038/ajg.2013.302
PMID:24042189
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

There are few data on cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in direct comparison with cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for colonoscopic resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs; ≤5 mm). The primary aim of this study was to compare the histologic polyp eradication rate of CSP with that of CFP using double-biopsy technique.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial at a single academic hospital. Of the 165 patients invited, 54 consecutive patients having 117 eligible polyps were enrolled in this study. To evaluate histologic eradication of polyps, two or more additional biopsies were taken from the base and edges of the polypectomy site.

RESULTS

The mean size of polyps was 3.66 mm (±1.13). Most polyps evaluated were tubular adenomas (69.9%). The rate of histologic eradication was significantly higher in the CSP group than in the CFP group (93.2% vs. 75.9%, P=0.009). The time taken for polypectomy was significantly shorter in the CSP group (14.29 vs. 22.03 s, P<0.001). Failure of tissue retrieval was noted in 6.8% of polyps resected by CSP. Multivariate analysis revealed that the method of polypectomy (CFP) and the polyp size (≥4 mm) were independent predictors associated with incomplete histologic eradication (odds ratio (OR) 4.750 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.459-15.466), OR 4.375 (95% CI: 1.345-14.235); all P<0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP is superior to CFP for the endoscopic removal of DCPs with regard to completeness of polypectomy. CSP technique should be considered the primary method for endoscopic treatment of polyps in the 4-5-mm size range (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01646242).

摘要

目的

对于结肠镜下切除微小结直肠息肉(DCP;≤5mm),冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)与冷活检钳息肉切除术(CFP)的比较数据较少。本研究的主要目的是比较 CSP 和 CFP 采用双活检技术切除 DCP 的组织学息肉完全清除率。

方法

这是一家单所学术医院的随机对照试验。在邀请的 165 名患者中,54 名连续入组的患者有 117 个符合条件的息肉纳入本研究。为了评估息肉的组织学清除情况,从息肉切除部位的基底和边缘处取两个或更多的附加活检。

结果

息肉的平均大小为 3.66mm(±1.13)。评估的大多数息肉为管状腺瘤(69.9%)。CSP 组的组织学清除率显著高于 CFP 组(93.2%比 75.9%,P=0.009)。CSP 组的息肉切除时间明显更短(14.29s 比 22.03s,P<0.001)。CSP 切除的息肉中有 6.8%出现组织回收失败。多变量分析显示,息肉切除术方法(CFP)和息肉大小(≥4mm)是与不完全组织学清除相关的独立预测因素(优势比(OR)4.750(95%置信区间(CI):1.459-15.466),OR 4.375(95%CI:1.345-14.235);均 P<0.05)。

结论

与 CFP 相比,CSP 更有利于 DCP 的内镜切除,在完全性息肉切除方面具有优势。CSP 技术应被视为 4-5mm 大小范围内息肉内镜治疗的主要方法(ClinicalTrials.gov 编号:NCT01646242)。

相似文献

1
Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study.冷圈套息肉切除术与冷活检钳息肉切除术联合双活检技术用于切除微小结直肠息肉的前瞻性随机研究。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct;108(10):1593-600. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.302. Epub 2013 Sep 17.
2
A prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polyps.一项关于使用窄带成像内镜进行冷活检钳息肉切除术与冷圈套息肉切除术治疗微小结直肠息肉患者的前瞻性随机对照研究。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Mar;83(3):527-32.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.053. Epub 2015 Sep 7.
3
Removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: A prospective randomized clinical trial between cold snare polypectomy and hot forceps biopsy.微小结直肠息肉的切除:冷圈套息肉切除术与热活检钳活检的前瞻性随机临床试验。
World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jan 14;23(2):328-335. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i2.328.
4
Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial.冷圈套息肉切除术与冷活检钳息肉切除术治疗小和小的结直肠息肉:一项随机对照试验。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):741-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.048.
5
Cold snare polypectomy compared to cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of guideline defined diminutive polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.与冷活检钳息肉切除术相比,冷圈套息肉切除术用于内镜下切除指南定义的微小息肉:一项随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2023 Dec;42(6):757-765. doi: 10.1007/s12664-023-01441-w. Epub 2023 Sep 30.
6
Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial.巨钳活检与冷圈套切除微小结直肠息肉的前瞻性随机对照研究。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jul;90(1):105-111. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.016. Epub 2019 Jan 23.
7
Impact of Cold Snare vs Cold Forceps Resection of Diminutive Adenomas on Segmental Incomplete Resection Rate.冷圈套与冷活检钳切除小腺瘤对节段性不完全切除率的影响。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2023 Aug 1;118(8):1410-1418. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002289. Epub 2023 Apr 11.
8
Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Cold Snare and Forceps Polypectomy Among Small POLYPs in Rates of Complete Resection: The TINYPOLYP Trial.随机对照试验研究冷圈套和活检钳息肉切除术在小息肉完全切除率方面的差异:TINYPOLYP 试验。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Aug 1;117(8):1305-1310. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001799. Epub 2022 Apr 25.
9
Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.冷切除技术治疗小尺寸结直肠息肉的疗效比较:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2018 Mar;32(3):1149-1159. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5786-4. Epub 2017 Aug 15.
10
Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy.抗凝治疗患者中小肠息肉切除术:冷圈套与传统息肉切除术的前瞻性随机比较。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Mar;79(3):417-23. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.040. Epub 2013 Oct 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for outpatient treatment of sessile polyps smaller than 10mm.冷圈套息肉切除术门诊治疗10mm以下无蒂息肉的疗效及安全性
BMC Gastroenterol. 2025 Sep 2;25(1):631. doi: 10.1186/s12876-025-04245-8.
2
New chapter in precision medicine: strategies for endoscopic resection of 10-20 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.精准医学新篇章:10 - 20毫米无蒂结直肠息肉的内镜切除策略
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2025 May 8;18:17562848251338672. doi: 10.1177/17562848251338672. eCollection 2025.
3
Cold Snare Polypectomy in Pediatric Polyposis: A Multicenter Experience.
儿童息肉病的冷圈套息肉切除术:多中心经验
Children (Basel). 2025 Feb 26;12(3):291. doi: 10.3390/children12030291.
4
Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.冷圈套息肉切除术与冷内镜黏膜切除术治疗小的结直肠息肉:一项随机对照试验的Meta分析
Clin Endosc. 2024 Nov;57(6):747-758. doi: 10.5946/ce.2024.081. Epub 2024 Aug 23.
5
Effectiveness and safety of thin vs. thick cold snare polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis.小的结直肠息肉采用冷圈套息肉切除术时,细圈套与粗圈套的有效性和安全性:系统评价与Meta分析
Endosc Int Open. 2024 Jan 19;12(1):E99-E107. doi: 10.1055/a-2221-7792. eCollection 2024 Jan.
6
Evaluation of a new method, "non-injection resection using bipolar soft coagulation mode (NIRBS)", for colonic adenomatous lesions.评估一种用于结肠腺瘤性病变的新方法——“使用双极软凝模式的非注射切除术(NIRBS)”。
Clin Endosc. 2023 Sep;56(5):623-632. doi: 10.5946/ce.2022.200. Epub 2023 May 18.
7
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.热圈套息肉切除术与冷圈套息肉切除术切除小的结直肠息肉的疗效和安全性比较分析:一项系统评价和Meta分析
Cureus. 2023 May 8;15(5):e38713. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38713. eCollection 2023 May.
8
Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps.结直肠息肉的内镜治疗
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2023 May 27;11:goad027. doi: 10.1093/gastro/goad027. eCollection 2023.
9
Incomplete resection rates of 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps when using wide-field cold snare resection with routine submucosal injection.使用常规黏膜下注射的宽视野冷圈套切除术时,4至20毫米无蒂结直肠息肉的不完全切除率
Endosc Int Open. 2023 May 17;11(5):E480-E489. doi: 10.1055/a-2029-2392. eCollection 2023 May.
10
Current endoscopic diagnosis treatment strategy for superficial nonampullary duodenal tumours.目前对非壶腹性十二指肠浅层肿瘤的内镜诊断治疗策略。
Eur J Med Res. 2022 Dec 14;27(1):290. doi: 10.1186/s40001-022-00940-4.