Cargando…

A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Winston, Kevin, Maulahela, Hasan, Raharjo, Daniell Edward, Tjoa, Kevin, Jonlean, Reganedgary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10246601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37292560
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38713
_version_ 1785055062987374592
author Winston, Kevin
Maulahela, Hasan
Raharjo, Daniell Edward
Tjoa, Kevin
Jonlean, Reganedgary
author_facet Winston, Kevin
Maulahela, Hasan
Raharjo, Daniell Edward
Tjoa, Kevin
Jonlean, Reganedgary
author_sort Winston, Kevin
collection PubMed
description Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost. The search criteria included randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and HSP for small colorectal polyps ≤10 mm and the articles were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), and meta-analysis was performed with outcomes measured using pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to calculate the OR. We selected a total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 11601 polyps for analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incomplete resection rate between CSP and HSP (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.88-1.73, p-value: 0.27; I(2): 51%), en bloc resection rate (OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.38-1.13; p: 0.13; I(2): 60%), and polyp retrieval rate (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.59-1.57; p: 0.89; I(2): 17%). For safety endpoints, there is no statistically significant difference in intraprocedural bleeding rate between CSP and HSP per patient analysis (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 0.74-7.54; p: 0.95; I(2): 74%) and per polyp basis (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.72-4.72; p: 0.20; I(2): 85%). CSP had lower OR for the delayed bleeding outcome when compared with the HSP group per patient basis (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.2-0.86; p: 0.02; I(2): 25%), but not in the per polyp analysis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.12-3; p: 0.53; I(2): 0%). Total polypectomy time was significantly shorter in the CSP group (mean difference: -0.81 minutes; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.66; p:<0.00001; I(2): 0%). Thus, CSP is both an efficacious and safe method for removing small colorectal polyps. Therefore, it can be recommended as a suitable alternative to HSP for the removal of small colorectal polyps. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate any long-term differences between the two methods such as polyp recurrence rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10246601
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102466012023-06-08 A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Winston, Kevin Maulahela, Hasan Raharjo, Daniell Edward Tjoa, Kevin Jonlean, Reganedgary Cureus Internal Medicine Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost. The search criteria included randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and HSP for small colorectal polyps ≤10 mm and the articles were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), and meta-analysis was performed with outcomes measured using pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to calculate the OR. We selected a total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 11601 polyps for analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incomplete resection rate between CSP and HSP (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.88-1.73, p-value: 0.27; I(2): 51%), en bloc resection rate (OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.38-1.13; p: 0.13; I(2): 60%), and polyp retrieval rate (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.59-1.57; p: 0.89; I(2): 17%). For safety endpoints, there is no statistically significant difference in intraprocedural bleeding rate between CSP and HSP per patient analysis (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 0.74-7.54; p: 0.95; I(2): 74%) and per polyp basis (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.72-4.72; p: 0.20; I(2): 85%). CSP had lower OR for the delayed bleeding outcome when compared with the HSP group per patient basis (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.2-0.86; p: 0.02; I(2): 25%), but not in the per polyp analysis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.12-3; p: 0.53; I(2): 0%). Total polypectomy time was significantly shorter in the CSP group (mean difference: -0.81 minutes; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.66; p:<0.00001; I(2): 0%). Thus, CSP is both an efficacious and safe method for removing small colorectal polyps. Therefore, it can be recommended as a suitable alternative to HSP for the removal of small colorectal polyps. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate any long-term differences between the two methods such as polyp recurrence rates. Cureus 2023-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10246601/ /pubmed/37292560 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38713 Text en Copyright © 2023, Winston et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Internal Medicine
Winston, Kevin
Maulahela, Hasan
Raharjo, Daniell Edward
Tjoa, Kevin
Jonlean, Reganedgary
A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of hot snare polypectomy and cold snare polypectomy for removing small colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Internal Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10246601/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37292560
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38713
work_keys_str_mv AT winstonkevin acomparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT maulahelahasan acomparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT raharjodanielledward acomparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tjoakevin acomparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jonleanreganedgary acomparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT winstonkevin comparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT maulahelahasan comparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT raharjodanielledward comparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tjoakevin comparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jonleanreganedgary comparativeanalysisoftheefficacyandsafetyofhotsnarepolypectomyandcoldsnarepolypectomyforremovingsmallcolorectalpolypsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis