Retrieval of colorectal polyps following snare polypectomy: Experience of the multiple-suction technique in 602 cases
- PMID: 18185937
- DOI: 10.1007/s00384-007-0429-1
Retrieval of colorectal polyps following snare polypectomy: Experience of the multiple-suction technique in 602 cases
Abstract
Background: Retrieving colorectal polyp after endoscopic snare polypectomy is time consuming and possibly incurs a failure. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the multiple-suction (M-S) technique for retrieving a variety of polyps.
Materials and methods: Four hundred and nine cases received endoscopic snare polypectomy from January 2003 to January 2007 were reviewed. The resected polyps were retrieved by M-S technique, in which suction regarded as the leading technique, was taken in combination with channel occlusion, trap, snare, and grasping forcep. Time of cecal intubation and of polypectomy, total examination time, shape, size, location, and number of polyp(s) were recorded. Retrieval time and polyp lost rate were also noted.
Results: A total of 602 polyps more than 3 mm in diameter underwent snare polypectomy. There were 96.7% (582/602) of polyps retrieved by the M-S technique. The mean retrieval time was 1.5 +/- 0.6 min. Time of polypectomy, retrieval time, and total examination time were significantly positive correlative with the number of polyps (P < 0.05). In a univariate analysis, longer retrieval time was significantly associated with larger polyps, more distant polyps from the anus, and a greater number of polyps, while higher polyp lost rate was significantly associated with sessile polyp, smaller polyps, and a greater number of polyps. In a multivariate analysis, retrieval time level (< or = 2.0 or >2.0 min) was linked to the number of polyps.
Conclusions: The M-S technique is proved to be reliable when used in the majority cases of colorectal polyp retrieval. In retrieving too many polyps, the M-S technique is time consuming, and hence, additional methods should be applied to improve its retrieval effectiveness.
Similar articles
-
Can endoscopic submucosal dissection technique be an alternative treatment option for a difficult giant (≥ 30 mm) pedunculated colorectal polyp?Dis Colon Rectum. 2013 May;56(5):660-6. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318276d2b9. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013. PMID: 23575407
-
Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Mar;77(3):395-400. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.007. Epub 2012 Dec 1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013. PMID: 23211749
-
Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study.Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct;108(10):1593-600. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.302. Epub 2013 Sep 17. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013. PMID: 24042189 Clinical Trial.
-
Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gastroenterology. 2020 Sep;159(3):904-914.e12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.018. Epub 2020 May 8. Gastroenterology. 2020. PMID: 32437747
-
BEST POLYPECTOMY TECHNIQUE FOR SMALL AND DIMINUTIVE COLORECTAL POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.Arq Gastroenterol. 2018 Oct-Dec;55(4):358-368. doi: 10.1590/S0004-2803.201800000-79. Arq Gastroenterol. 2018. PMID: 30785519
Cited by
-
Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Apr;5(3):309-334. doi: 10.1177/2050640617700014. Epub 2017 Mar 16. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017. PMID: 28507745 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy.United European Gastroenterol J. 2015 Aug;3(4):387-92. doi: 10.1177/2050640615572041. United European Gastroenterol J. 2015. PMID: 26279848 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical