Cold polypectomy techniques for small and diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective

In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619.

Results

Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03–1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02–1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04–1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07–1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference.

Conclusion

CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps’ removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique.

Keywords:

• Cold polypectomy
• cold snare
• colon cancer
• polyp
• systematic review
• meta-analysis

Transparency

Declaration of financial/other relationships

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

M.A. conceived the idea. B.A. and M.A. designed the research workflow. B.A. and M.A. searched the databases. Am, H.S., O.A., and N.S. screened the retrieved records extracted relevant data assessed the quality of evidence, and B.A. resolved the conflicts. M.A. and A.K.A. performed the analysis. M.A., I.M., and A.K.A. wrote the final manuscript. A.A., B.A., and M.O.O. supervised the project. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

None.

Additional information

Funding

This study received no funding.