Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 2274–2283 | Cite as

Management and risk factors for incomplete resection associated with jumbo forceps polypectomy for diminutive colorectal polyps: a single-institution retrospective study

  • Naoki AsayamaEmail author
  • Shinji Nagata
  • Kenjiro Shigita
  • Yutaro Ogawa
  • Hirosato Tamari
  • Taiki Aoyama
  • Akira Fukumoto
  • Shinichi Mukai
  • Mayumi Kaneko



Cold forceps polypectomy is simple and widely used in clinical practice. However, there are concerns about the risk of incomplete resection using this technique. In recent years, it has been reported that polypectomy with jumbo forceps (JF) is an effective treatment modality for diminutive polyps (DPs) because JF are able to remove large tissue samples with the combined advantage of a higher complete histological resection rate for DPs than standard forceps. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the risk factors for incomplete resection when polypectomy with JF is performed for DPs.


From among 1129 DPs resected using JF at Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital between November 2015 and December 2016, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 999 tumors with known histopathology and investigated the relationship between incomplete resection and clinicopathological factors.


Most lesions [985 (87%)] were low-grade dysplasia and 14 (1%) were high-grade dysplasia. The en bloc resection rate was 92% (918/999) and the histological en bloc resection rate was 78% (777/999). Multivariate analysis showed that the significant independent predictors of incomplete resection were tumor size ≥ 4 mm [odds ratio (OR) 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.65–5.37; p < 0.01], non-tangential direction of forceps in relation to the tumor (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.21–2.45; p < 0.01), and lack of muscularis mucosae in the pathological specimen (OR 15.7; 95% CI 9.16–27.7; p < 0.01).


This study identified significant independent predictors of incomplete resection of DPs which may be helpful when planning polypectomy with JF.


Cold forceps polypectomy Diminutive colorectal polyps Risk factors for incomplete resection Tangential direction of forceps Muscularis mucosae 


Author Contributions

NA and SN conceived and designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. NA, SN, KS, YO, HT, YS, TA, AF, and SM acquired the data. MK analyzed and interpreted the histopathological data. All authors critically revised the article for important intellectual content and approved the article for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards


Naoki Asayama, Shinji Nagata, Kenjiro Shigita, Yutaro Ogawa, Hirosato Tamari, Taiki Aoyama, Akira Fukumoto, Shinichi Mukai, and Mayumi Kaneko have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics for Hispanics/Latinos. CA Cancer J Clin 62:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS et al (2013) Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 369:1106–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al (1993) Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 329:1977–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al (2012) Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 366:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH et al (2010) Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31:210–217Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP et al (2013) Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 144:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M et al (2014) Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 79:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Efthymiou M, Taylor AC, Desmond PV et al (2011) Biopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 43:312–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu S, Ho SB, Krinsky ML (2012) Quality of polyp resection during colonoscopy: are we achieving polyp clearance? Dig Dis Sci 57:1786–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung YS, Park JH, Kim HJ et al (2013) Complete biopsy resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 45:1024–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY (2013) Cold snare polypectomy versus Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 108:1593–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A et al (2012) Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 75:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aslan F, Cekic C, Camci M et al (2015) What is the most accurate method for the treatment of diminutive colonic polyps?: standard versus jumbo forceps polypectomy. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uraoka T, Nakamura S, Sunata Y et al (2017) Cold Forceps polypectomy. Stomach Intestine 52:1545–1550 (abstract in English) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH et al (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system, 4th edn. IARC, LyonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raad D, Tripathi P, Cooper G et al (2016) Role of the cold biopsy technique in diminutive and small colonic polyp removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 83:508–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Singh N, Harrison M, Rex DK (2004) A survey of colonoscopic polypectomy practices among clinical gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 60:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matsuda T, Kawano H, Hisabe T et al (2014) Current status and future perspectives of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Endosc 26:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uraoka T, Hewett D, Chiu HM (2014) Current status and future perspectives of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Endosc 26:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee HS, Park HW, Kim JC et al (2017) Treatment outcomes and recurrence following standard cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive polyps. Surg Endosc 31:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ignjatovic A, East JE, Suzuki N et al (2009) Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 10:1171–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rex DK (2009) Narrow-band imaging without optical magnification for histologic analysis of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 136:1174–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK (2010) A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8:865–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rex DK, Kahi C, O’Brien M et al (2011) The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 73:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paggi S, Rondonotti E, Amato A et al (2012) Resect and discard strategy in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 44:899–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takeuchi Y, Hanafusa M, Kanzaki H et al (2014) Proposal of a new ‘resect and discard’ strategy using magnifying narrow band imaging: pilot study of diagnostic accuracy. Dig Endosc 26(Suppl 2):90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Takeuchi Y, Hanafusa M, Kanzaki H et al (2015) An alternative option for “resect and discard” strategy, using magnifying narrow-band imaging: a prospective “proof-of-principle” study. J Gastroenterol 50:1017–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bretagne JF, Manfredi S, Piette C et al (2010) Yield of high-grade dysplasia based on polyp size detected at colonoscopy: a series of 2295 examinations following a positive fecal occult blood test in a population-based study. Dis Colon Rectum 53:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oka S, Tanaka S, Nakadoi K et al (2014) Endoscopic features and management of diminutive colorectal submucosal invasive carcinoma. Dig Endosc 26:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shima H, Tanaka S, Kuwai T et al (2003) Minute depressed colon cancer with submucosal invasion. Gastrointest Endosc 57:564–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hotta K, Imai K, Yamaguchi Y et al (2015) Diminutive submucosally invasive cancers of the colon and rectum. Endosc 47(Suppl 1):E2–E3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoki Asayama
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shinji Nagata
    • 1
  • Kenjiro Shigita
    • 1
  • Yutaro Ogawa
    • 1
  • Hirosato Tamari
    • 1
  • Taiki Aoyama
    • 1
  • Akira Fukumoto
    • 1
  • Shinichi Mukai
    • 1
  • Mayumi Kaneko
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyHiroshima City Asa Citizens HospitalHiroshimaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Anatomical PathologyHiroshima City Asa Citizens HospitalHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations