Abuelazm Mohamed, Awad Ahmed K, Mohamed Islam, Mahmoud Abdelrahman, Shaikhkhalil Hosam, Shaheen Nour, Abdelwahab Omar, Afifi Ahmed M, Abdelazeem Basel, Othman Mohamed O
Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2023 Oct;39(10):1329-1339. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2023.2262374. Epub 2023 Oct 10.
In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps.
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619.
Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03-1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02-1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04-1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07-1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference.
CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps' removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique.
在小息肉和微小息肉的处理中,冷圈套息肉切除术比电灼息肉切除术更受青睐。然而,最佳的冷圈套息肉切除术技术仍存在争议。因此,本综述旨在探究用于小和微小结直肠息肉的最有效冷技术。
我们进行了一项系统评价和网状Meta分析,综合了通过截至2023年2月10日系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、SCOPUS和Cochrane获取的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用R软件(R版本4.2.0)和meta-insight软件,采用风险比(RR)及相应的置信区间(CI)汇总二分结局。我们的方案已前瞻性地发表在PROSPERO上,标识符为:CRD42022345619。
我们的分析纳入了19项RCT,共3649例患者和4800枚息肉。冷技术(冷活检钳息肉切除术(CFP)、大活检钳息肉切除术(JFP)、专用冷圈套息肉切除术(D-CSP)、传统冷圈套息肉切除术(C-CSP)、水下冷圈套息肉切除术(U-CSP)和冷圈套内镜黏膜切除术(CS-EMR))纳入了我们的比较分析。与C-CSP(RR:1.10,95%CI[1.03 - 1.18])、CS-EMR(RR:1.12,95%CI[1.02 - 1.23])、D-CSP(RR:1.17,95%CI[1.04 - 1.32])和U-CSP(RR:1.21,95%CI[1.07 - 1.38])相比,CFP在实现完整组织学切除方面效果较差。然而,其余比较均未显示出差异。
CFP是切除小和微小息肉最无效的方法,任何圈套息肉切除术技术都能取得更好的效果,需要更多大规模RCT来研究最有效的圈套息肉切除术技术。