Comparison of three electrosurgical modes for endoscopic mucosal resection of 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: Randomized controlled trial.

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-08-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2663-6177
Su Luo, Feng Xiong, Sheng-Gang Zhan, Zhenglei Xu, Ding-Guo Zhang, Ting-Ting Liu, Ying-Xue Li, Cheng Wei, Ben-Hua Wu, Yi-Teng Meng, Rui-Yue Shi, Jun Yao, Li-Sheng Wang, De-Feng Li
{"title":"Comparison of three electrosurgical modes for endoscopic mucosal resection of 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: Randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Su Luo, Feng Xiong, Sheng-Gang Zhan, Zhenglei Xu, Ding-Guo Zhang, Ting-Ting Liu, Ying-Xue Li, Cheng Wei, Ben-Hua Wu, Yi-Teng Meng, Rui-Yue Shi, Jun Yao, Li-Sheng Wang, De-Feng Li","doi":"10.1055/a-2663-6177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Endocut Q (effect 2, effect 3 and effect 4) commonly is used for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) when removing colorectal polyps. However, there is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting of Endocut Q being recommended in clinical practice. We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness and safety of three effects with EMR for removal of non-pedunculated 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with non-pedunculate colorectal polyps undergoing EMR were randomly allocated into effect 2, effect 3, and effect 4 groups. The primary outcome was rates of intra-procedural bleeding. Secondary outcomes were rates of post-procedural bleeding, perforation, complete resection, en bloc resection, R0 resection, and residual polyps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2637 eligible patients were included in the study and randomly assigned into the effect 2, effect 3, or effect 4 group. There were no significant differences among the three groups in baseline characteristics ( <i>P</i> > 0.05). In addition, no significant differences were observed in rates of post-procedural bleeding, perforation, complete resection, en bloc resection, R0 resection, residual polyps, or post-polypectomy syndrome ( <i>P</i> > 0.05). However, the rate of intra-procedural bleeding was significantly lower in the effect 2 group than in the effect 3 and effect 4 groups (4.0% vs. 12.2% vs. 12.7%, <i>P</i> < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endocut Q (effect 2, effect 3 and effect 4) was effective and safe for removing 10- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. However, effect 2 may be superior to effect 3 and effect 4 in reducing intra-procedural bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a26636177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12418810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2663-6177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Endocut Q (effect 2, effect 3 and effect 4) commonly is used for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) when removing colorectal polyps. However, there is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting of Endocut Q being recommended in clinical practice. We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness and safety of three effects with EMR for removal of non-pedunculated 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps.

Patients and methods: Patients with non-pedunculate colorectal polyps undergoing EMR were randomly allocated into effect 2, effect 3, and effect 4 groups. The primary outcome was rates of intra-procedural bleeding. Secondary outcomes were rates of post-procedural bleeding, perforation, complete resection, en bloc resection, R0 resection, and residual polyps.

Results: A total of 2637 eligible patients were included in the study and randomly assigned into the effect 2, effect 3, or effect 4 group. There were no significant differences among the three groups in baseline characteristics ( P > 0.05). In addition, no significant differences were observed in rates of post-procedural bleeding, perforation, complete resection, en bloc resection, R0 resection, residual polyps, or post-polypectomy syndrome ( P > 0.05). However, the rate of intra-procedural bleeding was significantly lower in the effect 2 group than in the effect 3 and effect 4 groups (4.0% vs. 12.2% vs. 12.7%, P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Endocut Q (effect 2, effect 3 and effect 4) was effective and safe for removing 10- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. However, effect 2 may be superior to effect 3 and effect 4 in reducing intra-procedural bleeding.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

三种电手术方式在内镜下粘膜切除10 ~ 20mm结肠直肠息肉的比较:随机对照试验。
背景与研究目的:Endocut Q(效应2、效应3、效应4)常用于内镜下粘膜切除术(EMR)切除结肠直肠息肉。然而,关于在临床实践中推荐Endocut Q的电手术设置类型存在争议。我们进行了一项随机对照试验,以评估EMR治疗10- 20毫米非带梗结肠息肉的有效性和安全性。患者和方法:将行EMR的非带蒂结直肠息肉患者随机分为效果2组、效果3组和效果4组。主要观察指标为术中出血发生率。次要结果是术后出血、穿孔、完全切除、整体切除、R0切除和残余息肉的发生率。结果:共有2637名符合条件的患者被纳入研究,并随机分为效果2、效果3或效果4组。三组患者基线特征比较差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。此外,术后出血、穿孔、完全切除、整体切除、R0切除、残余息肉或息肉切除后综合征的发生率无显著差异(P < 0.05)。但效果2组术内出血发生率明显低于效果3组和效果4组(4.0%比12.2%比12.7%,P < 0.01)。结论:Endocut Q(效应2、效应3、效应4)治疗10 ~ 20mm无带蒂结直肠息肉安全有效。然而,效果2在减少术内出血方面可能优于效果3和效果4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信