Search

Background Cold snare defect protrusions (CSDPs) that occur after cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are considered indicators of incomplete polyp resection (IPR). We have sometimes experienced difficulty resecting polyps with snaring alone; in such cases, a forcible pull on the snare by the endoscopist is necessary. We call this procedure "forced CSP (FCSP)." However, no previous studies have evaluated this procedure. Methods This was a prospective observational study. From November 2020 to June 2021, the frequency, safety, and validity of FCSP were evaluated at our hospital. We distinguished CSP with snaring alone performed by the assistant as conventional CSP, and CSP requiring a forcible pull on the snare by the endoscopist as FCSP. Results Of 1315 polyps removed, 105 underwent FCSP (8%). The perforation rate was 0% in both groups. The rate of CSDP after the procedure was 96.2% (101/105) with FCSP and 6.4% (77/1210) with conventional CSP (P <0.001). The rate of IPR was 12.5% (13/104) with FCSP and 6.2% (75/1208) with conventional CSP (P =0.02). Multivariable analysis identified polyps located in the cecum (risk ratio [RR], 1.13; 95%CI 1.050–1.179; P =0.003) and polyps ≥6mm in diameter (RR, 2.37; 95%CI 2.146–2.542; P <0.001) as independent risk factors for FCSP. Conclusions FCSP was performed on 105 polyps (8%) in this study. FCSP may be associated with the occurrence of CSDP and IPR. Further studies are necessary to confirm our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has spread rapidly, no prospective studies evaluating the safety of CSP for pedunculated (Ip) polyps have been carried out. We performed this study to provide an accurate evaluation of the safety of CSP for Ip polyps. This is a prospective study (UMIN000035687). From January 2019 to February 2021, the safety of CSP for use on Ip polyps <10 mm with thin stalks was evaluated at our hospital. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of bleeding (delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) and immediate bleeding). During the study period, 89 consecutive patients (including 92 colonoscopies and 114 polyps) were prospectively enrolled. The en-bloc resection rate was 100%. The rate of DPPB after CSP was 0%, however, DPPB after conversion to HSP occurred in 1 case (33.3% (1/3)). The rate of immediate bleeding during CSP was 28.9% (33/114). Polyps with diameters ≥6 mm (OR (95% CI): 2.77 (1.041–7.376); p =.041) were extracted as independent risk factors for immediate bleeding during CSP for Ip polyps. In all, 104 (91.2%) polyps were low-grade adenomas, and the percentage of cases with negative pathological margins was 96.5% (110/114). CSP for Ip polyps was safe and had good outcomes. We believe that Ip polyps could be included as an indication for CSP, and that CSP may become the next step in the 'cold revolution.' To confirm our results and verify CSP's inclusion in future guidelines, prospective, randomized studies are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has spread rapidly, its safety for pedunculated (Ip) polyps remains controversial. In particular, the outcomes of hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and CSP for Ip polyps have not been previously compared. Aims: This study evaluated whether the rate of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) after CSP for Ip polyps was higher than that after HSP for Ip polyps and compared other outcomes (the rates of immediate bleeding and pathological margins) between the HSP and CSP procedures. Methods: A total of 5905 colorectal polyps in 4920 patients were resected at Omori Red Cross Hospital between October 2012 and June 2019. The polyps were divided into two groups: the HSP group (86 polyps, 64 patients) and the CSP group (102 polyps, 87 patients). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of DPPB. The secondary outcome measures were the incidences of immediate bleeding during the procedure and pathological margins of the resected specimen. Results: The rate of immediate bleeding during CSP was significantly higher than that for the HSP group [38.2% (39/102) versus 3.5% (3/86); p < 0.001]. However, the rate of DPPB was significantly higher in the HSP group than in the CSP group [4.7% (4/86) versus 0% (0/102); p < 0.001]. The rate of DPPB after CSP was 0%. Conclusions: This is the first study to compare the outcomes of HSP and CSP for Ip polyps. CSP is safer than HSP for Ip polyps measuring < 10 mm in diameter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]