The efficacy and safety of cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for endoscopic removal of small colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The optimal technique for removing small colorectal polyps ranging from 5 to 10 mm in size remains uncertain. In order to compare the efficacy and adverse events between cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for removing small polyps, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from 1998 to May 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting small colorectal polyps. The primary outcome measure was the incomplete resection rate (IRR). RESULTS: Seven studies that met our study criteria, with a total of 3178 included polyps, were included in our analysis. The incomplete resection rate (IRR) was found to be significantly higher in the CSP group compared to the HSP group (risk ratio [RR] 1.57 [1.17-2.11], P = 0.003). Although the CSP group had a higher local recurrence rate than the HSP group, the difference was not statistically significant (RR: 3.98 [0.66-23.84], P = 0.13). The polyp retrieval rates were not significantly different between the two groups (RR: 1.00 [0.99-1], P = 0.22). Perforation was not reported or mentioned in any of the seven studies. The overall immediate bleeding rate was significantly higher in the CSP group than the HSP group (RR: 2.26 [1.63-3.14], P < 0.001), but immediate postpolypectomy bleeding requiring additional intervention was similar between the groups (RR: 1.08 [0.54-2.17], P = 0.82). The delayed bleeding rate (RR: 0.83 [0.45-1.55], P = 0.56) and specific polypectomy time (RR: -0.46 [-1.05-0.12], P = 0.12) were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis shows a significantly higher IRR for CSP compared with HSP when removing small polyps.

A Comparison of Incomplete Resection Rate of Large and Small Colorectal Polyps by Cold Snare Polypectomy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for large colorectal polyps. We evaluated factors affecting the clinical outcomes of CSP for polyps between 5 and 15 mm in size. METHODS: This was a prospective single-center observational study involving 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Polyps (5-15 mm) were removed using CSP, and biopsies were taken from the resection margin. The primary outcome was the incomplete resection rate (IRR), and was determined by the presence of residual neoplasia on biopsy. Correlations between IRR and polyp size, morphology, histology, and resection time were assessed by generalized estimating equation model. RESULTS: A total of 440 neoplastic polyps were removed from 261 patients. The overall IRR was 2.27%, 1.98% for small (5-9 mm) vs 3.45% for large (10-15 mm) polyps (P = .411). In univariate analysis, the IRR was more likely to be related to sessile serrated lesions (odds ratio [OR], 6.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-25.45; P = .004), piecemeal resection (OR, 11.83; 95% CI, 1.20-116.49; P = .034), and prolonged resection time >60 seconds (OR, 7.56; 95% CI, 1.75-32.69; P = .007). In multivariable regression analysis, sessile serrated lesions (OR, 6.45; 95% CI, 1.48-28.03; P = .013) and resection time (OR, 7.39; 95% CI, 1.48-36.96; P = .015, respectively) were independent risk factors for IRR. Immediate bleeding was more frequent with resection of large polyps (6.90% vs 1.42%; P = .003). No recurrence was seen on follow-up colonoscopy in 37 cases with large polyps. CONCLUSIONS: CSP is safe and effective for removal of colorectal polyps up to 15 mm in size, with a low IRR. (ClinicalTrials.gov; Number: NCT03647176).

A prospective randomized study comparing jumbo biopsy forceps to cold snare for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The quality of colonoscopy is essential for successful colon cancer screening. Inadequate polypectomy technique can contribute to incomplete polypectomy. The primary outcome of this study was to compare the incomplete resection rate (IRR) for cold jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP). Secondary outcomes were to compare the rates of tissue retrieval and rates of procedure-related complications. METHODS: This prospective randomized parallel-group study assigned patients undergoing colonoscopy to jumbo biopsy forceps polypectomy (JFP) or cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps ≤ 6 mm in size. After polyp removal was complete, the base of the polypectomy site was biopsied to evaluate for the presence of residual polyp tissue. RESULTS: The resection quality was evaluated in 151 patients with 261 polyps ≤ 6 mm. The IRR was 9.6% (25/261) for all polyps, 11.1% (16/144) for JFP, and 7.7% (9/117) for CSP (P = 0.41). Failure of tissue retrieval was noted in 0/144 (0%) of JFP and 5/117 (4.3%) of CSP (P = 0.02). There were no procedure-related complications in either group. CONCLUSION: Colon polyps are incompletely resected in a small but potentially significant percentage of cases. IRR are similar with the use of cold jumbo forceps and cold snare. Use of cold jumbo forceps may result in more successful tissue retrieval as compared to cold snare.

Prevention of interval colorectal cancers: what every clinician needs to know.

Colonoscopic screening and surveillance have been very effective tools in the fight against colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy is more than a cancer screening test; it also can prevent CRC by detecting and removing precancerous lesions. Despite this potential, there has been increasing concern about CRCs that occur after a previous colonoscopy and before the next screening/surveillance examination (interval CRCs). The etiology of interval CRC is thought to be caused mostly by missed or incompletely resected lesions on index colonoscopy with some contribution of rapidly progressive new lesions. If this is true, many interval cancers should be preventable by improving colonoscopy technique. There are a variety of strategies to decrease interval CRC rates including use of a split-dosed bowel preparation, optimizing withdrawal technique, ensuring complete polypectomy, and careful pathologic examination of the tissue removed. Furthermore, there should be an increased emphasis on how endoscopists are trained to cultivate high-quality technique throughout their careers. It is important to inform patients that even high-quality colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of advanced neoplasia. Improving colonoscopy quality can decrease interval CRC rates and further decrease CRC incidence and mortality.