• 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

10-20mm 无蒂结直肠息肉不同内镜切除方法的有效性和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Effectiveness and safety of the different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and pooled analysis.

机构信息

School of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China.

Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Zhejiang, China.

出版信息

Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2021 Nov-Dec;27(6):331-341. doi: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_180_21.

DOI:10.4103/sjg.sjg_180_21
PMID:34643573
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8656331/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library related to the common endoscopic treatment of 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated polyps published as of April 2020 were searched. Primary outcomes were the R0 resection rate and en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were safety and the recurrence rate. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies involving 3212 polyps were included in the final analysis. Overall, the effectiveness of resection methods with a submucosal uplifting effect, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold EMR and underwater EMR (UEMR), was better than that of methods without a nonsubmucosal uplifting effect [R0 resection rate, 90% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.94, I = 84%) vs 82% (95% CI 0.78-0.85, I = 0%); en bloc resection rate 85% (95% CI 0.79-0.91, I = 83%) vs 74% (95% CI 0.47-0.94, I = 94%)]. Regarding safety, the pooled data showed that hot resection [hot snare polypectomy, UEMR and EMR] had a higher risk of intraprocedural bleeding than cold resection [3% (95% CI 0.01-0.05, I = 68%) vs 0% (95% CI 0-0.01, I = 0%)], while the incidences of delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were all low.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods with submucosal uplifting effects are more effective than those without for resecting 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, and cold EMR is associated with a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding than other methods. Additional research is needed to verify the advantages of these methods, especially cold EMR.

摘要

背景

我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估 10-20mm 无蒂结直肠息肉的不同内镜切除方法的有效性和安全性。

方法

检索截至 2020 年 4 月发表的关于 10-20mm 无蒂息肉的常见内镜治疗的 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆中的文章。主要结局为 R0 切除率和整块切除率。次要结局为安全性和复发率。还进行了元回归和亚组分析。

结果

共有 36 项研究,涉及 3212 个息肉,最终纳入分析。总体而言,具有黏膜下抬举作用的切除方法(包括内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)、冷 EMR 和水下 EMR(UEMR))的效果优于无黏膜下抬举作用的方法[R0 切除率 90%(95%置信区间(CI)0.81-0.94,I = 84%)比 82%(95%CI 0.78-0.85,I = 0%);整块切除率 85%(95%CI 0.79-0.91,I = 83%)比 74%(95%CI 0.47-0.94,I = 94%)]。关于安全性,汇总数据显示,热切除[热圈套息肉切除术、UEMR 和 EMR]术中出血风险高于冷切除[3%(95%CI 0.01-0.05,I = 68%)比 0%(95%CI 0-0.01,I = 0%)],而迟发性出血、穿孔和息肉切除后综合征的发生率均较低。

结论

具有黏膜下抬举作用的方法比无黏膜下抬举作用的方法更有效地切除 10-20mm 无蒂结直肠息肉,冷 EMR 与其他方法相比,术中出血风险较低。需要进一步的研究来验证这些方法的优势,特别是冷 EMR。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/bc9bf865b220/SJG-27-331-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/242abcc81183/SJG-27-331-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/5b666a660ae0/SJG-27-331-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/e37f24e34ce2/SJG-27-331-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/ffefd5d10b64/SJG-27-331-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/bc9bf865b220/SJG-27-331-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/242abcc81183/SJG-27-331-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/5b666a660ae0/SJG-27-331-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/e37f24e34ce2/SJG-27-331-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/ffefd5d10b64/SJG-27-331-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/27f8/8656331/bc9bf865b220/SJG-27-331-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Effectiveness and safety of the different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and pooled analysis.10-20mm 无蒂结直肠息肉不同内镜切除方法的有效性和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2021 Nov-Dec;27(6):331-341. doi: 10.4103/sjg.sjg_180_21.
2
Comparative efficacy and safety of resection techniques for treating 6 to 20mm, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.比较 6 至 20mm、无蒂结直肠息肉切除技术的疗效和安全性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Dig Liver Dis. 2023 Jul;55(7):856-864. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.10.011. Epub 2022 Nov 4.
3
Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.冷圈套息肉切除术治疗≥ 10mm 无蒂锯齿状息肉的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Dig Liver Dis. 2022 Nov;54(11):1486-1493. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.01.132. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
4
A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal sessile/non-polypoid lesions.内镜黏膜切除术与内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗结直肠平坦/无蒂病变的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022 Aug;31(6):835-847. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2022.2032759. Epub 2022 Feb 3.
5
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.内镜下黏膜切除术与水下内镜黏膜切除术治疗直径≤20mm 的非壶腹性十二指肠浅表层上皮肿瘤:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Dig Liver Dis. 2023 Jun;55(6):714-720. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.09.001. Epub 2022 Oct 1.
6
Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.内镜全层切除术治疗结直肠病变:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Surg Res. 2022 Dec;280:440-449. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.07.019. Epub 2022 Aug 30.
7
Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for resecting small colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis.冷圈套与热圈套息肉切除术治疗结直肠小息肉的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Dig Endosc. 2018 Sep;30(5):592-599. doi: 10.1111/den.13173. Epub 2018 May 14.
8
Computer-aided diagnosis for the resect-and-discard strategy for colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.计算机辅助诊断在结直肠息肉的“切与弃”策略中的应用:系统评价与荟萃分析。
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Nov;9(11):1010-1019. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00222-X. Epub 2024 Sep 17.
9
Endoscopic techniques to reduce recurrence rates after colorectal EMR: systematic review and meta-analysis.内镜技术降低结直肠 EMR 后复发率:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Surg Endosc. 2021 Oct;35(10):5422-5429. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08574-z. Epub 2021 Jun 2.
10
Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.内镜下全层切除术治疗结直肠病变:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Feb;95(2):216-224.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.039. Epub 2021 Oct 7.

引用本文的文献

1
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.
2
Effects of Different Endoscopic Treatment Methods on Bleeding Complications in Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps.不同内镜治疗方法对带蒂结直肠息肉出血并发症的影响
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2025 Jun 1;35(3):e1362. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000001362.
3
Efficacy-cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and cold snare polypectomy: A propensity score matching analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Complications of cold hot snare polypectomy of 10-20 mm polyps: A retrospective cohort study.10 - 20毫米息肉冷圈套热切除的并发症:一项回顾性队列研究。
JGH Open. 2019 Aug 18;4(2):172-177. doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12243. eCollection 2020 Apr.
2
Clinical implications of decision making in colorectal polypectomy: an international survey of Western endoscopists suggests priorities for change.结直肠息肉切除术决策的临床意义:一项针对西方内镜医师的国际调查提出了变革重点。
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Mar;8(3):E445-E455. doi: 10.1055/a-1079-4298. Epub 2020 Feb 21.
3
Endoscopic Removal of Colorectal Lesions-Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
内镜黏膜切除术与冷圈套息肉切除术的疗效-成本分析:一项倾向评分匹配分析。
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2025 Feb 27;17(2):99510. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i2.99510.
4
Endoscopic resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: current standards of treatment.大肠广基息肉的内镜下切除:当前治疗标准
eGastroenterology. 2024 Apr 3;2(2):e100025. doi: 10.1136/egastro-2023-100025. eCollection 2024 Apr.
5
Comparative meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: assessing efficacy and safety.结直肠息肉冷圈套息肉切除术与内镜黏膜切除术的比较荟萃分析:评估疗效和安全性
PeerJ. 2024 Dec 19;12:e18757. doi: 10.7717/peerj.18757. eCollection 2024.
6
Cold EMR vs. Hot EMR for the removal of sessile serrated polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.冷切除法(Cold EMR)与热切除法(Hot EMR)治疗大于 10mm 的无蒂锯齿状息肉:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Surg. 2024 Mar 20;24(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02325-2.
7
Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm.内镜黏膜下切除术-预切开术与传统内镜黏膜切除术治疗直径为 10-20mm 的无蒂结直肠息肉。
World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Dec 7;28(45):6397-6409. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i45.6397.
8
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists.内镜黏膜切除术:胃肠内镜医师的最佳实践
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2022 Mar;18(3):133-144.
美国结直肠癌多学会特别工作组关于内镜下切除结直肠病变的建议
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Mar;91(3):486-519. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.01.029. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
4
Cold snare endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm. A retrospective series.冷圈套器内镜下切除直径大于10mm的无蒂结直肠息肉。一项回顾性研究系列。
Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2019 Oct-Dec;82(4):475-478.
5
Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.系统文献回顾:下消化道内镜中结直肠息肉切除技术的学习曲线。
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Sep;22(9):1085-1100. doi: 10.1111/codi.14960. Epub 2020 Jan 30.
6
Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps 10 mm or Larger: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.内镜下切除 10mm 或更大的无蒂锯齿状息肉的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;18(11):2448-2455.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.041. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
7
Comparison of underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for removing sessile colorectal polyps: a propensity-score matched cohort study.水下与传统内镜黏膜切除术切除无蒂结直肠息肉的比较:一项倾向评分匹配队列研究。
Endosc Int Open. 2019 Nov;7(11):E1528-E1536. doi: 10.1055/a-1007-1578. Epub 2019 Oct 31.
8
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video).经内镜切除非小的无蒂结直肠病变:水下与常规内镜切除的前瞻性随机对照研究(附视频)。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Mar;91(3):643-654.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.039. Epub 2019 Oct 16.
9
Local recurrence and its risk factors after cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyps.冷圈套息肉切除术治疗结直肠息肉后局部复发及其危险因素。
Surg Endosc. 2020 Jul;34(7):2918-2925. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07072-7. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
10
Short and long-term outcomes of underwater EMR compared to the traditional procedure in the real clinical practice.在真实临床实践中比较水下 EMR 与传统方法的短期和长期结果。
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2019 Jul;111(7):543-549. doi: 10.17235/reed.2019.6009/2018.