Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 1149–1159 | Cite as

Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

  • Yoon Suk Jung
  • Chan Hyuk Park
  • Eunwoo Nam
  • Chang Soo Eun
  • Dong Il Park
  • Dong Soo Han
Article

Abstract

Background

Although cold polypectomy techniques are preferred over polypectomy with electrocautery in the management of diminutive polyps, comprehensive comparisons among various cold polypectomy techniques have not yet been fully performed.

Methods

We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published up until October 2016 examining the efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive polyps. Cold polypectomy techniques were classified as cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), traditional cold snare polypectomy (CSP), and dedicated CSP, according to the type of device. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the direct and indirect estimates of efficacy among the cold polypectomy techniques.

Results

Seven studies with 703 patients and 968 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding comparative efficacy for complete histological eradication, there was no inconsistency in the network (Cochran’s Q test, df = 4, P = 0.22; I 2 = 30%). In terms of complete histological eradication, both dedicated and traditional CSP were superior to CFP (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] 4.31 [1.92–9.66] and 2.45 [1.30–4.63], respectively); dedicated CSP was superior to traditional CSP (OR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.07–2.89]); and there was no difference between JFP versus CFP (OR [95% CI] 1.36 [0.40–4.61]). Regarding tissue retrieval rate, there was no difference between dedicated versus traditional CSP (OR [95% CI] 1.03 [0.44–2.38]). The procedure time for CSP was comparable to that of CFP.

Conclusions

Dedicated CSP was shown to be superior to other cold polypectomy techniques in terms of complete histological eradication. Cold polypectomy using a dedicated snare can be recommended for the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Keywords

Diminutive polyp Cold forceps polypectomy Cold snare polypectomy Efficacy Network meta-analysis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Yoon Suk Jung, Chan Hyuk Park, Eunwoo Nam, Chang Soo Eun, Dong Il Park, and Dong Soo Han have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2017_5786_MOESM1_ESM.tif (305 kb)
Risk of bias summary: the review authors' judgments regarding each risk of bias item for each included study (TIFF 305 kb)
464_2017_5786_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rex DK, Helbig CC (2007) High yields of small and flat adenomas with high-definition colonoscopes using either white light or narrow band imaging. Gastroenterology 133(1):42–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rex DK, Overhiser AJ, Chen SC, Cummings OW, Ulbright TM (2009) Estimation of impact of American College of Radiology recommendations on CT colonography reporting for resection of high-risk adenoma findings. Am J Gastroenterol 104(1):149–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsai FC, Strum WB (2011) Prevalence of advanced adenomas in small and diminutive colon polyps using direct measurement of size. Dig Dis Sci 56(8):2384–2388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Church JM (2004) Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 47(4):481–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    East JE, Suzuki N, Bassett P, Stavrinidis M, Thomas HJ, Guenther T, Tekkis PP, Saunders BP (2008) Narrow band imaging with magnification for the characterization of small and diminutive colonic polyps: pit pattern and vascular pattern intensity. Endoscopy 40(10):811–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK (2010) A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(10):865–869 869.e861-863 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abu Dayyeh BK, Thosani N, Konda V, Wallace MB, Rex DK, Chauhan SS, Hwang JH, Komanduri S, Manfredi M, Maple JT, Murad FM, Siddiqui UD, Banerjee S (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):502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paggi S, Rondonotti E, Amato A, Terruzzi V, Imperiali G, Mandelli G, Terreni N, Lenoci N, Spinzi G, Radaelli F (2012) Resect and discard strategy in clinical practice: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 44(10):899–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hewett DG, Rex DK (2011) Colonoscopy and diminutive polyps: hot or cold biopsy or snare? Do I send to pathology? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(2):102–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shin SJ, Lee SH, Park DI, Hong SN, Kim SE, Yang DH, Hong SP, Lee BI, Kim HS, Kim YH, Yang SK, Kim HJ, Kim SH; Multi-Society Task Force for the Guidelines for Colorectal Polyp Screening, Surveillance and Management (2011) A Korean National Survey for treatment modality in colon polypectomy. Intestig Res 9(3):196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matsuda T, Kawano H, Hisabe T, Ikematsu H, Kobayashi N, Mizuno K, Oka S, Takeuchi Y, Tamai N, Uraoka T, Hewett D, Chiu HM (2014) Current status and future perspectives of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Endosc 26(Suppl 2):104–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh N, Harrison M, Rex DK (2004) A survey of colonoscopic polypectomy practices among clinical gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 60(3):414–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(4):264–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC (2011) Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 14(4):417–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins J, Altman DG, Sterne J (2016) Cochrnae handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0, Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm. Accessed 31 Jan 2016
  16. 16.
    J H, S G Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0, Chapter 16.9.2 Studies with zero-cell counts. http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_16/16_9_2_studies_with_zero_cell_counts.htm. Accessed 31 January 2016
  17. 17.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 327(7414):557–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins J, Green S (2016) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0, Chapter 10.4.3.1 Recommendations on testing for funnel plot asymmetry. http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_10/10_4_3_1_recommendations_on_testing_for_funnel_plot_asymmetry.htm. Accessed 31 January 2016
  19. 19.
    Rucker G (2012) Network meta-analysis, electrical networks and graph theory. Res Synth Methods 3(4):312–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rucker G, Schwarzer G (2015) Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:58CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, Kibret T, Beyene J (2014) Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages. PLoS ONE 9(12):e115065CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noda H, Ogasawara N, Sugiyama T, Yoshimine T, Tamura Y, Izawa S, Kondo Y, Ebi M, Funaki Y, Sasaki M, Kasugai K (2016) The Influence of Snare Size on the Utility and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy for the Removal of Colonic Polyps in Japanese Patients. J Clin Med Res 8(9):662–666CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A, Dixon LR, Lieb J, Moshiree B, Polyak S, Sultan S, Collins D, Suman A, Valentine JF, Wagh MS, Habashi SL, Forsmark CE (2012) Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 75(1):118–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee CK, Shim JJ, 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):1593–1600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Din S, Ball AJ, Riley SA, Kitsanta P, Johal S (2015) Cold snare polypectomy: does snare type influence outcomes? Dig Endosc 27(5):603–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gomez V, Badillo RJ, Crook JE, Krishna M, Diehl NN, Wallace MB (2015) Diminutive colorectal polyp resection comparing hot and cold snare and cold biopsy forceps polypectomy. Results of a pilot randomized, single-center study. Endosc Int Open 3(1):76–80Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horiuchi A, Hosoi K, Kajiyama M, Tanaka N, Sano K, Graham DY (2015) Prospective, randomized comparison of 2 methods of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 82(4):686–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H, Jun SY, Park ES, Park JM, Lee IS, Kim BW, Kim SW, Choi MG (2015) Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 81(3):741–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park SK, Ko BM, Han JP, Hong SJ, Lee MS (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):527–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kapsoritakis AN, Potamianos SP, Koukourakis MI, Tzardi M, Mouzas IA, Roussomoustakaki M, Alexandrakis G, Kouroumalis EA (2002) Diminutive polyps of large bowel should be an early target for endoscopic treatment. Dig Liver Dis 34(2):137–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J, Michaels L, Eisen G (2008) Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 135(4):1100–1105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee J (2016) Resection of diminutive and small colorectal polyps: what is the optimal technique? Clin Endosc 49(4):355–358CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fujiya M, Sato H, Ueno N, Sakatani A, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T, Fujibayashi S, Nomura Y, Kashima S, Gotoh T, Sasajima J, Moriichi K, Watari J, Kohgo Y (2016) Efficacy and adverse events of cold vs hot polypectomy: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 22(23):5436–5444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Efthymiou M, Taylor AC, Desmond PV, Allen PB, Chen RY (2011) Biopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 43(4):312–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung YS, Park JH, Kim HJ, Cho YK, Sohn CI, Jeon WK, Kim BI, Sohn JH, Park DI (2013) Complete biopsy resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 45(12):1024–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung HospitalSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University Guri HospitalHanyang University College of MedicineGuriKorea
  3. 3.Biostatistical Consulting and Research Lab, Medical Research Coordinating CenterHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations