Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct;108(10):1593-600. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.302. Epub 2013 Sep 17.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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。
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。
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)。
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)。