Comparative meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: assessing efficacy and safety

PeerJ. 2024 Dec 19:12:e18757. doi: 10.7717/peerj.18757. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Colorectal polyps are commonly treated with surgical procedures, with cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) being the two most prevalent techniques. This meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022336152) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, covering publications up until June 2024. The primary outcome was complete resection rate, and secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, and procedure time. The Mantel-Haenszel method was employed for the analysis of binary endpoints, while the inverse variance method was used for continuous outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Six studies involving 15,296 patients and 17,971 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. CSP had a significantly lower complete resection rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.21-0.94], p = 0.0334). However, there was no significant difference between CSP and EMR in en bloc resection rate, perforation, or procedure time. Interestingly, CSP had a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.45, 95% CI [0.27-0.77], p = 0.0034), but there was no significant difference in immediate bleeding rate. In conclusion, CSP is a safe, efficient, and effective technique comparable to EMR. The choice of technique should be based on the individual patient and polyp characteristics.

Keywords: Cold snare polypectomy; Colorectal polyps; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Endoscopy.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Comparative Study
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Colonic Polyps* / pathology
  • Colonic Polyps* / surgery
  • Colonoscopy / methods
  • Endoscopic Mucosal Resection* / adverse effects
  • Endoscopic Mucosal Resection* / methods
  • Humans
  • Operative Time
  • Treatment Outcome

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Suzhou Nursing Association GuSu nursing talent “Qingmiao” plan (SHQM202304). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.