当前位置：
X-MOL 学术
›
Gastrointest. Endosc.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your
feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( IF 6.7 ) Pub Date : 2019-01-23 , DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.016 Cheal Wung Huh 1 , Joon Sung Kim 1 , Hyun Ho Choi 2 , I So Maeng 3 , Sun-Young Jun 3 , Byung-Wook Kim 1
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( IF 6.7 ) Pub Date : 2019-01-23 , DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.016 Cheal Wung Huh 1 , Joon Sung Kim 1 , Hyun Ho Choi 2 , I So Maeng 3 , Sun-Young Jun 3 , Byung-Wook Kim 1
Affiliation
|
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) have been shown to be effective for removing diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm). However, no study has compared complete resection rates between CSP and JFP for DCPs. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of JFP with CSP for the removal of DCPs.
METHODS
This was a prospective randomized controlled trial from 2 tertiary-care referral centers. A total of 1003 patients were screened, and 169 patients with 196 DCPs were enrolled. The main outcome was complete polyp resection rate.
RESULTS
Of 196 diminutive polyps, 177 (90.3%) were adenomatous polyps. The overall complete resection rate was 92.1% (163/177). The complete resection rate was not significantly different between JFP and CSP groups (92.0% vs 92.2%; P = .947). JFP achieved complete resection rates comparable with CSP for polyps >3 mm (90.3% vs 89.8%; P = .928). Polypectomy procedure time, tissue retrieval rate, and rate of postpolypectomy adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Both JFP and CSP achieved complete resection rates of >90% for DCPs. Thus, JFP may be considered for polypectomy of DCPs. (International clinical trial registry number: KCT0002805.).
中文翻译：
巨型活检钳与冷网套钳切除小肠结肠息肉：一项前瞻性随机对照试验。
背景和目的已证明，冷圈套息肉切除术（CSP）和巨型镊子息肉切除术（JFP）可有效去除小肠结肠息肉（DCP）（≤5mm）。但是，尚无研究比较DCP的CSP和JFP之间的完整切除率。这项研究的目的是比较JFP和CSP去除DCP的功效和安全性。方法这是来自两个三级转诊中心的前瞻性随机对照试验。总共筛选了1003例患者，其中169例具有196个DCP的患者入组。主要结果是息肉完全切除率。结果196例微小的息肉中，有177例（90.3％）是腺瘤性息肉。整体完全切除率为92.1％（163/177）。JFP组和CSP组之间的完全切除率没有显着差异（92.0％对92.2％； P = .947）。对于大于3 mm的息肉，JFP的完全切除率与CSP相当（90.3％对89.8％； P = .928）。两组的息肉切除术时间，组织取回率和息肉切除术后不良事件发生率之间无显着差异。结论JFP和CSP对DCP的完全切除率均> 90％。因此，可以考虑将JFP用于DCP的息肉切除术。（国际临床试验注册号：KCT0002805。）。
更新日期：2019-06-19
中文翻译：
巨型活检钳与冷网套钳切除小肠结肠息肉：一项前瞻性随机对照试验。
背景和目的已证明，冷圈套息肉切除术（CSP）和巨型镊子息肉切除术（JFP）可有效去除小肠结肠息肉（DCP）（≤5mm）。但是，尚无研究比较DCP的CSP和JFP之间的完整切除率。这项研究的目的是比较JFP和CSP去除DCP的功效和安全性。方法这是来自两个三级转诊中心的前瞻性随机对照试验。总共筛选了1003例患者，其中169例具有196个DCP的患者入组。主要结果是息肉完全切除率。结果196例微小的息肉中，有177例（90.3％）是腺瘤性息肉。整体完全切除率为92.1％（163/177）。JFP组和CSP组之间的完全切除率没有显着差异（92.0％对92.2％； P = .947）。对于大于3 mm的息肉，JFP的完全切除率与CSP相当（90.3％对89.8％； P = .928）。两组的息肉切除术时间，组织取回率和息肉切除术后不良事件发生率之间无显着差异。结论JFP和CSP对DCP的完全切除率均> 90％。因此，可以考虑将JFP用于DCP的息肉切除术。（国际临床试验注册号：KCT0002805。）。
京公网安备 11010802027423号