Suppr超能文献

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

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.

作者信息

Winston Kevin, Maulahela Hasan, Raharjo Daniell Edward, Tjoa Kevin, Jonlean Reganedgary

机构信息

Hospital Medicine, Bhakti Medicare Hospital, Sukabumi, IDN.

Gastroenterology, Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Jakarta, IDN.

出版信息

Cureus. 2023 May 8;15(5):e38713. doi: 10.7759/cureus.38713. eCollection 2023 May.

Abstract

Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost. The search criteria included randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and HSP for small colorectal polyps ≤10 mm and the articles were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), and meta-analysis was performed with outcomes measured using pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to calculate the OR. We selected a total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 11601 polyps for analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incomplete resection rate between CSP and HSP (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.88-1.73, p-value: 0.27; I: 51%), en bloc resection rate (OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.38-1.13; p: 0.13; I: 60%), and polyp retrieval rate (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.59-1.57; p: 0.89; I: 17%). For safety endpoints, there is no statistically significant difference in intraprocedural bleeding rate between CSP and HSP per patient analysis (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 0.74-7.54; p: 0.95; I: 74%) and per polyp basis (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.72-4.72; p: 0.20; I: 85%). CSP had lower OR for the delayed bleeding outcome when compared with the HSP group per patient basis (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.2-0.86; p: 0.02; I: 25%), but not in the per polyp analysis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.12-3; p: 0.53; I: 0%). Total polypectomy time was significantly shorter in the CSP group (mean difference: -0.81 minutes; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.66; p:<0.00001; I: 0%). Thus, CSP is both an efficacious and safe method for removing small colorectal polyps. Therefore, it can be recommended as a suitable alternative to HSP for the removal of small colorectal polyps. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate any long-term differences between the two methods such as polyp recurrence rates.

摘要

冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)和热圈套息肉切除术(HSP)均已被证明是切除小的结直肠息肉的有效方法,但实现完整切除的最佳方法仍不明确。为解决这一问题,我们使用PubMed、ProQuest和EBSCOhost等数据库对相关文章进行了系统检索。检索标准包括比较CSP和HSP用于直径≤10mm的小结直肠息肉的随机对照试验,文章根据特定的纳入和排除标准进行筛选。使用RevMan软件(版本5.4;英国伦敦Cochrane协作网)对数据进行分析,并采用合并比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)测量结果进行荟萃分析。采用Mantel-Haenszel随机效应模型计算OR。我们共选择了14项涉及11601个息肉的随机对照试验进行分析。汇总分析显示,CSP和HSP在不完全切除率(OR:1.22;95%CI:0.88-1.73;p值:0.27;I²:51%)、整块切除率(OR:0.66;95%CI:0.38-1.13;p:0.13;I²:60%)和息肉回收成功率(OR:0.97;95%CI:0.59-1.57;p:0.89;I²:17%)方面无统计学显著差异。对于安全性终点,在按患者分析(OR:2.37,95%CI:0.74-7.54;p:0.95;I²:74%)和按息肉分析(OR:1.84,95%CI:0.72-4.72;p:0.20;I²:85%)时,CSP和HSP的术中出血率无统计学显著差异。与HSP组相比,CSP在按患者分析时延迟出血结局的OR较低(OR:0.42;95%CI:0.2-0.86;p:0.02;I²:25%),但在按息肉分析时并非如此(OR:0.59;95%CI:0.12-3;p:0.53;I²:0%)。CSP组的息肉切除总时间显著更短(平均差值:-0.81分钟;95%CI:-0.96,-0.66;p:<0.00001;I²:0%)。因此,CSP是切除小结直肠息肉的一种有效且安全的方法。因此,对于切除小结直肠息肉,它可被推荐为HSP的合适替代方法。然而,需要更多研究来评估这两种方法之间的任何长期差异,如息肉复发率。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1af4/10246601/2731ae8082b4/cureus-0015-00000038713-i01.jpg

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