Suppr超能文献

与冷活检钳息肉切除术相比,冷圈套息肉切除术用于内镜下切除指南定义的微小息肉:一项随机试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Cold snare polypectomy compared to cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of guideline defined diminutive polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

作者信息

Lv Yong-Cai, Yao Yan-Hua, Lei Jing-Jing, Tang Tao

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Zhenning Buyi and Miao Autonomous County People's Hospital, Zhenning, 561200, Guizhou Province, China.

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, 550004, Guizhou Province, China.

出版信息

Indian J Gastroenterol. 2023 Dec;42(6):757-765. doi: 10.1007/s12664-023-01441-w. Epub 2023 Sep 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps  < 10 mm in size. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed conflicting results for the use of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) vs. CSP for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤ 5 mm), especially for polyps  ≤ 3 mm. Herein we compared CFP with CSP for patients with DCPs in this meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to November 24, 2022, (Registration number INPLASY2022110135). The primary endpoint was DCP complete resection rate. The secondary endpoints were mean polypectomy time, polyp retrieval rate and complications.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 1023 DCPs were included. The complete resection rate (91.6% vs. 94.7%) for CFP was not significantly lower for polyps ≤ 5 mm (relative risk [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.07). Sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (88.7% vs. 92.4%) for CFP was not significantly lower for DCPs > 3 mm (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.97-1.12). Another sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (97.0% vs. 96.3%) was similar for polyps ≤ 3 mm for CFP vs. CSP (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.03). The mean polypectomy time was not different between CFP and CSP (95% CI: -11.86-10.18). The polyp retrieval rate (100% vs. 96.9%) was not significantly higher for CFP (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.07). There were no reported complications in the included studies. The overall study quality was moderate except for the removal of polyps ≤ 5 mm (low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

CFP was comparable to CSP for the resection of polyps ≤ 3 mm; however, caution should be taken for DCPs > 3 mm because of the low complete resection rate (< 90%).

摘要

背景

国际指南推荐对直径小于10毫米的息肉进行冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)。然而,最近的随机临床试验(RCT)显示,在切除微小结直肠息肉(DCP,直径≤5毫米),尤其是直径≤3毫米的息肉时,使用冷活检钳息肉切除术(CFP)与CSP的结果相互矛盾。在此项RCT的荟萃分析中,我们比较了CFP和CSP用于DCP患者的情况。

方法

我们系统检索了Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和EMBASE数据库,检索时间从建库至2022年11月24日(注册号INPLASY2022110135)。主要终点是DCP完全切除率。次要终点是平均息肉切除时间、息肉取出率和并发症。

结果

纳入了7项涉及1023个DCP的RCT。对于直径≤5毫米的息肉,CFP的完全切除率(91.6%对94.7%)并无显著降低(相对风险[RR]=1.03;95%置信区间[CI]:0.98 - 1.07)。亚组分析显示,对于直径>3毫米的DCP,CFP的完全切除率(88.7%对92.4%)并无显著降低(RR = 1.04;95% CI:0.97 - 1.12)。另一亚组分析显示,对于直径≤3毫米的息肉,CFP与CSP的完全切除率相似(97.0%对96.3%)(RR = 1.00;95% CI:0.98 - 1.03)。CFP和CSP之间的平均息肉切除时间无差异(95% CI:-11.86 - 10.18)。CFP的息肉取出率(100%对96.9%)并无显著更高(RR = 1.02;95% CI:0.98 - 1.07)。纳入的研究中未报告有并发症。除了切除直径≤5毫米的息肉(低质量证据)外,总体研究质量为中等。

结论

对于直径≤3毫米的息肉,CFP与CSP相当;然而,对于直径>3毫米的DCP,由于完全切除率低(<90%),应谨慎使用。

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