Suppr超能文献

冷圈套息肉切除术与吸引假性息肉技术的随机比较。

A randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy versus a suction pseudopolyp technique.

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.

Department of Histopathology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

Endoscopy. 2015 Nov;47(11):1005-10. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1392533. Epub 2015 Jul 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cold snare techniques are widely used for removal of diminutive and small colorectal polyps. The influence of resection technique on the effectiveness of polypectomy is unknown. We therefore compared standard cold snare polypectomy with a newly described suction pseudopolyp technique, for completeness of excision and for complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this single-center study, 112 patients were randomized to cold snare polypectomy or the suction pseudopolyp technique. Primary outcome was endoscopic completeness of excision. Consensus regarding the endoscopic assessment of completeness of excision was standardized and aided by chromoendoscopy. Secondary outcomes included: completeness of histological excision, polyp "fly away" and retrieval rates, early bleeding (48 hours), delayed bleeding (2 weeks), and perforation.

RESULTS

148 polyps were removed, with size range 3 - 7 mm, 60 % in the left colon, and 90 % being sessile. Regarding completeness of excision (with uncertain findings omitted): endoscopically, this was higher with the suction pseudopolyp technique compared with cold snare polypectomy but not statistically significantly so (73/74 [98.6 %] vs. 63/68 [92.6 %]; P = 0.08). A trend towards a higher complete histological excision rate with the suction pseudopolyp technique was also not statistically significant (45/59 [76.3 %] vs. 37/58 [63.8 %]; P = 0.14). Polyp retrieval rate was not significantly different (suction 68/76 [89.5 %] vs. cold snare 64/72 [88.9 %]; P = 0.91). No perforation or bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

In this study both polypectomy techniques were found to be safe and highly effective, but further large multicenter trials are required.Clinical trial registration at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02208401.

摘要

背景

冷圈套技术广泛用于切除微小和小型结直肠息肉。切除技术对息肉切除术效果的影响尚不清楚。因此,我们比较了标准的冷圈套息肉切除术和新描述的抽吸假息肉技术,以评估切除的完整性和并发症。

患者和方法

在这项单中心研究中,112 名患者被随机分为冷圈套息肉切除术或抽吸假息肉技术组。主要结局是内镜下切除的完整性。通过对比染色内镜,对切除完整性的内镜评估达成共识并进行标准化。次要结局包括:组织学切除的完整性、息肉“飞走”和回收率、早期出血(48 小时)、迟发性出血(2 周)和穿孔。

结果

共切除 148 个息肉,大小范围为 3-7mm,60%位于左半结肠,90%为无蒂息肉。关于切除的完整性(排除不确定的发现):在镜下,抽吸假息肉技术的切除完整性高于冷圈套息肉切除术,但无统计学意义(74/74[98.6%]比 63/68[92.6%];P=0.08)。抽吸假息肉技术有更高的完整组织学切除率的趋势,但无统计学意义(45/59[76.3%]比 37/58[63.8%];P=0.14)。息肉回收率无显著差异(抽吸 68/76[89.5%]比冷圈套 64/72[88.9%];P=0.91)。两组均未发生穿孔或需要止血的出血。

结论

在这项研究中,两种息肉切除术均安全且非常有效,但需要进一步的大型多中心试验。临床试验在 www.clinicaltrials.gov 注册:NCT02208401。

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