Evaluation of efficacy and safety of different endoscopic polypectomy techniques for colonic polyps.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
De-Hui Ji, Zhong-An Guan
{"title":"Evaluation of efficacy and safety of different endoscopic polypectomy techniques for colonic polyps.","authors":"De-Hui Ji, Zhong-An Guan","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.110347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colorectal polypectomy is fundamental to the prevention of colorectal cancer, utilizing several endoscopic techniques. Robust comparative data regarding the efficacy and safety of these modalities in clinical practice are limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of three endoscopic polypectomy techniques, namely, high-frequency electroresection (HFE), cold snare polypectomy (CSP), and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), for the treatment of colonic polyps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective cohort study included adults who underwent endoscopic resection of pathologically confirmed colorectal polyps at Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University between January 2015 and December 2023. Patients were grouped by technique: HFE (<i>n</i> = 107), CSP (<i>n</i> = 106), and EMR (<i>n</i> = 108). Standardized preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative protocols were applied. Outcome measures included resection status (<i>en bloc</i>, R0, R1, and Rx), adverse events (immediate/delayed bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome), postoperative pain (visual analog scale at 1, 3, and 5 hours), and 12-month recurrence rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline demographics and polyp characteristics, except for polyp diameter, were comparable among groups. CSP achieved the highest <i>en bloc</i> resection rate, whereas HFE had a higher R0 resection rate. Polyp diameter was largest in the EMR group. Procedure duration was shortest with HFE. Adverse reactions were more frequent with HFE, particularly post-polypectomy bleeding and delayed perforation, whereas CSP demonstrated a superior safety profile and the lowest incidence of complications. Postoperative pain diminished in all groups over time but was consistently low for CSP and EMR. Recurrence rates were significantly higher in the EMR group <i>vs</i> CSP group, with HFE showing intermediate recurrence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CSP offers the best safety profile and lowest recurrence rate among patients undergoing endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps, whereas HFE confers a high R0 resection rate but increased risk of adverse events. EMR remains essential for large polyps despite elevated recurrence. Technique selection should be tailored according to polyp characteristics and patient risk factors to optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 9","pages":"110347"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12476698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i9.110347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Colorectal polypectomy is fundamental to the prevention of colorectal cancer, utilizing several endoscopic techniques. Robust comparative data regarding the efficacy and safety of these modalities in clinical practice are limited.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of three endoscopic polypectomy techniques, namely, high-frequency electroresection (HFE), cold snare polypectomy (CSP), and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), for the treatment of colonic polyps.

Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included adults who underwent endoscopic resection of pathologically confirmed colorectal polyps at Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University between January 2015 and December 2023. Patients were grouped by technique: HFE (n = 107), CSP (n = 106), and EMR (n = 108). Standardized preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative protocols were applied. Outcome measures included resection status (en bloc, R0, R1, and Rx), adverse events (immediate/delayed bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome), postoperative pain (visual analog scale at 1, 3, and 5 hours), and 12-month recurrence rate.

Results: Baseline demographics and polyp characteristics, except for polyp diameter, were comparable among groups. CSP achieved the highest en bloc resection rate, whereas HFE had a higher R0 resection rate. Polyp diameter was largest in the EMR group. Procedure duration was shortest with HFE. Adverse reactions were more frequent with HFE, particularly post-polypectomy bleeding and delayed perforation, whereas CSP demonstrated a superior safety profile and the lowest incidence of complications. Postoperative pain diminished in all groups over time but was consistently low for CSP and EMR. Recurrence rates were significantly higher in the EMR group vs CSP group, with HFE showing intermediate recurrence.

Conclusion: CSP offers the best safety profile and lowest recurrence rate among patients undergoing endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps, whereas HFE confers a high R0 resection rate but increased risk of adverse events. EMR remains essential for large polyps despite elevated recurrence. Technique selection should be tailored according to polyp characteristics and patient risk factors to optimize outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不同内镜下息肉切除术治疗结肠息肉的疗效和安全性评价。
背景:结肠息肉切除术是预防结直肠癌的基础,使用多种内镜技术。关于这些方法在临床实践中的有效性和安全性的可靠比较数据是有限的。目的:评价和比较高频电切术(HFE)、冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)和内镜粘膜切除术(EMR)三种内镜下息肉切除技术治疗结肠息肉的疗效和安全性。方法:本研究为单中心回顾性队列研究,纳入2015年1月至2023年12月在山东第一医科大学附属中心医院行内镜下病理证实的结直肠息肉切除术的成年人。患者按技术分组:HFE (n = 107), CSP (n = 106)和EMR (n = 108)。采用标准化的术前、术中、术后方案。结果测量包括切除状态(整体、R0、R1和Rx)、不良事件(立即/延迟出血、穿孔和息肉切除术后凝血综合征)、术后疼痛(1、3和5小时的视觉模拟评分)和12个月复发率。结果:除息肉直径外,各组间基线人口统计学和息肉特征具有可比性。CSP的整体切除率最高,而HFE的R0切除率更高。EMR组息肉直径最大。HFE组手术时间最短。HFE的不良反应更为频繁,尤其是息肉切除术后出血和延迟穿孔,而CSP表现出更高的安全性和最低的并发症发生率。随着时间的推移,所有组的术后疼痛都有所减轻,但CSP和EMR的疼痛一直很低。EMR组的复发率明显高于CSP组,HFE表现为中度复发。结论:在内镜下行结肠息肉切除术的患者中,CSP具有最佳的安全性和最低的复发率,而HFE具有较高的R0切除率,但增加了不良事件的风险。尽管复发率高,EMR对大息肉仍是必要的。技术选择应根据息肉的特点和患者的危险因素量身定制,以优化结果。
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
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
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