Tayar Elias, Ladna Michael, King William, Gupte Anand R, Paudel Bishal, Sarheed Ahmed, Rosasco Robyn, Qumseya Bashar J
Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Internal Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States.
Endosc Int Open. 2024 Jun 6;12(6):E732-E739. doi: 10.1055/a-2306-6535. eCollection 2024 Jun.
Endoscopic resection has traditionally involved electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant polyps. Recent data have suggested superior safety of cold resection. We aimed to assess the safety of cold compared with traditional (hot) resection for non-ampullary duodenal polyps. We performed a systematic review ending in September 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the adverse event (AE) rate for cold compared with hot polyp resection. We reported odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes included rates of polyp recurrence and post-polypectomy syndrome. We assessed publication bias with the classic fail-safe test and used forest plots to report pooled effect estimates. We assessed heterogeneity using I index. Our systematic review identified 1,215 unique citations. Eight of these met inclusion criteria, seven of which were published manuscripts and one of which was a recent meeting abstract. On random effect modeling, cold resection was associated with significantly lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection. The difference in the odds of perforation (odds ratio [OR] 0.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-2.87], =0.2, I =0) and polyp recurrence (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.15-3.73], =0.72, I =0) between hot and cold resection was not statistically significant. There were no cases of post-polypectomy syndrome reported with either hot or cold techniques. Cold resection is associated with lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection for duodenal tumors. There was a trend toward higher odds of perforation and recurrence following hot resection, but this trend was not statistically significant.
传统上,内镜切除术采用电外科烧灼(热圈套器)来切除癌前息肉。最近的数据表明,冷切除术具有更高的安全性。我们旨在评估与传统(热)切除术相比,冷切除术治疗非壶腹十二指肠息肉的安全性。我们进行了一项截至2022年9月的系统评价。感兴趣的主要结局是冷息肉切除术与热息肉切除术相比的不良事件(AE)发生率。我们报告了具有95%置信区间(CI)的比值比。次要结局包括息肉复发率和息肉切除术后综合征发生率。我们使用经典的失效安全检验评估发表偏倚,并使用森林图报告合并效应估计值。我们使用I²指数评估异质性。我们的系统评价共识别出1215条独特的文献引用。其中8篇符合纳入标准,7篇为已发表的手稿,1篇为近期会议摘要。在随机效应模型中,与热切除术相比,冷切除术与延迟出血的发生率显著降低相关。热切除术和冷切除术在穿孔发生率(比值比[OR]0.31[95%置信区间[CI]0.05 - 2.87],P = 0.2,I² = 0)和息肉复发率(OR 0.75[95% CI 0.15 - 3.73],P = 0.72,I² = 0)方面的差异无统计学意义。热切除术和冷切除术均未报告息肉切除术后综合征病例。与热切除术相比,冷切除术治疗十二指肠肿瘤时延迟出血的发生率较低。热切除术后穿孔和复发的发生率有升高趋势,但这一趋势无统计学意义。