Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cold Snare Polypectomy Vs. Cold Forceps Polypectomy Using Double-Biopsy Technique for Removal of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cold Snare Polypectomy Vs. Cold Forceps Polypectomy Using Double-Biopsy Technique for Removal of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Cold Snare Polypectomy Vs. Cold Forceps Polypectomy Using Double-Biopsy Technique for Removal of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cold Snare Polypectomy Vs. Cold Forceps Polypectomy Using Double-Biopsy Technique for Removal of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Study
2013
Overview
There are few data on cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in direct comparison with cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for colonoscopic resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs; ≤5 mm). The primary aim of this study was to compare the histologic polyp eradication rate of CSP with that of CFP using double-biopsy technique.
This was a randomized controlled trial at a single academic hospital. Of the 165 patients invited, 54 consecutive patients having 117 eligible polyps were enrolled in this study. To evaluate histologic eradication of polyps, two or more additional biopsies were taken from the base and edges of the polypectomy site.
The mean size of polyps was 3.66 mm (±1.13). Most polyps evaluated were tubular adenomas (69.9%). The rate of histologic eradication was significantly higher in the CSP group than in the CFP group (93.2% vs. 75.9%, P=0.009). The time taken for polypectomy was significantly shorter in the CSP group (14.29 vs. 22.03 s, P<0.001). Failure of tissue retrieval was noted in 6.8% of polyps resected by CSP. Multivariate analysis revealed that the method of polypectomy (CFP) and the polyp size (≥4 mm) were independent predictors associated with incomplete histologic eradication (odds ratio (OR) 4.750 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.459-15.466), OR 4.375 (95% CI: 1.345-14.235); all P<0.05, respectively).
CSP is superior to CFP for the endoscopic removal of DCPs with regard to completeness of polypectomy. CSP technique should be considered the primary method for endoscopic treatment of polyps in the 4-5-mm size range (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01646242).
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Research, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Subject
