Advertisement

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

  • Shireena Desai
  • Samir Gupta
  • Nedret Copur-Dahi
  • Mary L. KrinskyEmail author
Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) Jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) Incomplete resection rate (IRR) Small colonic polyps Adenomatous polyps Biopsy forceps polypectomy 

Abbreviations

UCSD

University of California San Diego

VA

Veterans Affairs

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Shahrokh Golshan for assistance with the statistical analysis, and Amelia Parnell for the preparation of this manuscript for submission.

Author contributions

All authors were either primary authors of the manuscript, conducted manuscript revision, or approved the final manuscript.

Funding

An unrestricted educational grant funding from SpectraScience was used for this study. There were no institutional or corporate affiliations associated with this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Shireena Desai, Samir Gupta, Nedret Copur-Dahi, and Mary L. Krinsky have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Miller K, Fedewa S et al (2017) Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA 67:177–193Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rex DK, Shoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al (2015) Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 81(1):31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leung K, Pinsky P, Laiyemo AO et al (2010) Ongoing colorectal cancer risk despite surveillance colonoscopy: the polyp prevention trial continued follow-up study. Gastrointest Endosc 71(1):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen S et al (2013) Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 144(1):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu S, Ho SB, Krinsky ML (2012) Quality of polyp resection during colonoscopy: are we achieving polyp clearance? Dig Dis Sci 57(7):1786–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martinez M, Baron J, Lieberman D et al (2009) A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 136(3):832–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee CK, Shim J, Jang JY (2013) Cold snare polypectomy vs. cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 108(10):1593–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Efthymiou M, Taylor AC, Desmond PV et al (2011) Biopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy. 43(4):312–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woods A, Sanowski RA, Wadas DD et al (1989) Eradication of diminutive polyps: a prospective evaluation of bipolar coagulation versus conventional biopsy removal. Gastrointest Endosc 35(6):536–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Church JM (2004) Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 47(4):481–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kapsoritakis AN, Potamianos SP, Koukourakis MI et al (2002) Diminutive polyps of large bowel should be an early target for endoscopic treatment. Dig Liver Dis. 34(2):137–140CrossRefGoogle 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(1):118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PD, Kwon YM et al (2008) Jumbo forceps are superior to standard large-capacity forceps in obtaining diagnostically adequate inflammatory bowel disease surveillance biopsy specimens. Gastrointest Endosc 68(2):273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H et al (2015) Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 81(3):741–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M et al (2005) Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 129(1):34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB et al (2006) Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(10):1259–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park SK, Ko BM, Han JP et al (2016) A prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 83(3):527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huh CW, Kim JS, Choi HH et al (2019) Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest EndoscGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 94(15):e621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duloy AM, Kaltenbach TR, Keswani RN (2018) Assessing colon polypectomy competency and its association with quality metrics. Gastrointest Endosc 87(3):635–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ichise Y, Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y et al (2011) Prospective randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Digestion 84(1):78–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tappero G, Gaia E, De Giuli P et al (1992) Cold snare excision of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 38(3):310–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Repici A, Hassan C, Vitetta E et al (2012) Safety of cold polypectomy for < 10 mm polyps at colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 44(1):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deenadayalu VP, Rex DK (2005) Colon polyp retrieval after cold snaring. Gastrointest Endosc 62(2):253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASGE Technology Committee, Dayyeh BKA, Thosani N, Konda V et al (2015) ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 81(3):502.e1–502.e16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Komeda Y, Suzuki N, Sarah M et al (2013) Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 77(3):395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kaiser Permanente, Irvine Medical CenterIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of MedicineUniversity of California San Diego HealthLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.Gastroenterology (111D), Department of MedicineVA San Diego Healthcare System, San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations