Digestive Endoscopy Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Branch of Shanghai First People's Hospital, Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):733-740. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.010. Epub 2017 Jun 21.
Small colorectal polyps are encountered frequently and may be incompletely removed during colonoscopy. The optimal technique for removal of small colorectal polyps is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the incomplete resection rate (IRR) by using EMR or cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small adenomatous polyps.
This was a prospective randomized controlled study from a tertiary-care referral center. A total of 358 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria (polyp sized 6-9 mm) were randomized to the EMR (n =179) and CSP (n =179) groups, and their polyps were treated with conventional EMR or CSP, respectively. After polypectomy, an additional 5 forceps biopsies were performed at the base and margins of polypectomy sites to assess the presence of residual polyp tissue. The EMR and CSP samples were compared to assess the IRR.
Among a total of 525 polyps, 415 (79.0%) were adenomatous polyps, and 41 (16.4%) were advanced adenomas. The overall IRR for adenomatous polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group compared with the EMR group (18/212, 8.5% vs 3/203, 1.5%; P = .001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the CSP procedure was a stronger risk factor for the IRR (odds ratio [OR] 6.924; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.098-24.393; P = .003). In addition, piecemeal resection was the most important risk factor for the IRR (OR 28.696; 95% CI, 3.620-227.497; P = .001). The mean procedure time for polypectomy was not significantly different between the EMR and CSP groups (5.5 ± 2.7 vs 4.7 ± 3.4 minutes; P = .410). None of these patients presented with delayed bleeding. There were no severe adverse events related to the biopsies.
EMR was significantly superior to CSP for achieving complete endoscopic resection of small colorectal polyps. Patients with piecemeal resection of polyps had a higher risk for incomplete resection. (Clinical trial registration number: Hongwei-1102-12.).
在结肠镜检查中,经常会遇到小的结直肠息肉,并且可能无法完全切除。目前,对于小的结直肠腺瘤性息肉的最佳切除方法尚不确定。本研究旨在比较内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)与冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)切除小的腺瘤性息肉时的不完全切除率(IRR)。
这是一项来自三级转诊中心的前瞻性随机对照研究。符合纳入标准(息肉大小为 6-9mm)的 358 例患者被随机分为 EMR 组(n=179)和 CSP 组(n=179),分别采用常规 EMR 或 CSP 治疗。息肉切除后,在息肉切除部位的基底和边缘处进行另外 5 次活检钳活检,以评估残留息肉组织的存在情况。对 EMR 和 CSP 样本进行比较,以评估 IRR。
在总共 525 个息肉中,415 个(79.0%)为腺瘤性息肉,41 个(16.4%)为高级别腺瘤。CSP 组的腺瘤性息肉的总体 IRR 明显高于 EMR 组(18/212,8.5%比 3/203,1.5%;P=0.001)。Logistic 回归分析显示,CSP 手术是 IRR 的更强危险因素(比值比[OR]6.924;95%置信区间[CI]2.098-24.393;P=0.003)。此外,分片切除是 IRR 的最重要危险因素(OR 28.696;95%CI 3.620-227.497;P=0.001)。两组的息肉切除术平均手术时间无显著差异(EMR 组 5.5±2.7 分钟,CSP 组 4.7±3.4 分钟;P=0.410)。这些患者均未出现迟发性出血。活检无严重不良事件。
EMR 在实现小的结直肠息肉完全内镜切除方面明显优于 CSP。分片切除的患者发生不完全切除的风险更高。(临床试验注册号:Hongwei-1102-12.)