Colorectal polyps are classified as neoplastic or non-neoplastic on the basis of malignant potential. All neoplastic polyps should be completely removed because both the incidence of colorectal cancer and the mortality of colorectal cancer patients have been found to be strongly correlated with incomplete polypectomy. The majority of colorectal polyps discovered on diagnostic colonoscopy are diminutive and small polyps; therefore, complete resection of these polyps is very important. However, there is no consensus on a method to remove diminutive and small polyps, and various techniques have been adopted based on physician preference. The aim of this article was to review the diverse techniques used to remove diminutive and small polyps and to suggest which technique will be the most effective.
PolypsColorectalTechniqueResectionINTRODUCTION
Colorectal cancer is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer in Korea [1]. Most, if not all, colorectal cancers arise from preexisting adenomas. Adenomas develop as a result of factors associated with the initiation of tumors, and they progress to carcinoma because of factors that act as tumor promoters. Therefore, early detection and complete removal of adenomatous polyps reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer as well as the mortality of patients with colorectal cancer [2,3].
Colorectal polyps are divided by size into three groups: diminutive (≤5 mm), small (6 to 9 mm), and large (≥10 mm). In a systematic review of the frequency of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size, advanced adenomas were discovered in 1,155 subjects, corresponding to diminutive, small, and large polyps in 4.6%, 7.9%, and 87.5% of the cases, respectively [4]. Although diminutive and small polyps demonstrate a lower frequency of any advanced histological features compared with large polyps, all neoplastic polyps should be completely removed because of the risk of malignancy. However, there is no consensus regarding the method to remove diminutive and small polyps, and various techniques have been adopted based on physician preferences. According to surveys of endoscopists in Korea and Japan, cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) is the preferred method for removing diminutive polyps [5,6]. However, according to a survey of endoscopists in the United States, the most commonly used polypectomy techniques are CFP for polyps measuring 1 to 3 mm and hot forceps polypectomy (HFP) for polyps measuring 4 to 6 mm [7]. In this article, we have discussed and suggested optimal techniques for the resection of diminutive and small colorectal polyps.
POLYPECTOMY TECHNIQUES FOR DIMINUTIVE AND SMALL COLORECTAL POLYPSCold forceps polypectomy
The CFP technique is performed as follows. A biopsy forceps is passed through the working channel of the endoscope. The jaws of the forceps are placed over the polyp tissue, and the polyp is captured and removed with mechanical pressure. The advantages of CFP are the following: easy, simple technique to apply; short procedure time; relatively low cost; easy tissue retrieval; and low rate of complications, such as bleeding or perforation. Unfortunately, this procedure is associated with significant rates of incomplete polyp resection [8]. The endoscopist should meticulously inspect the resection site and remove any remaining tissue to confirm that complete resection has been achieved. Notably, previous trials revealed a marked incomplete resection rate following what was considered complete removal of a polyp (29% to 38%) [9-11]. The reason for this rather high incomplete resection rate might be that minor bleeding after the initial bite can obstruct the visual field of a polypectomy site. To increase the complete resection rate, proposed alternatives to conventional CFP include the use of jumbo biopsy forceps (Radial Jaw 4 Single-Use Jumbo Biopsy Forceps; Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA) [12] or narrow-band imaging evaluation of remnant tissue following CFP [13].
Hot forceps polypectomy
HFP is analogous to CFP except it involves applying an electric current to the forceps. The technique of HFP involves the following. A biopsy forceps is passed through the working channel of an endoscope. The tip of the polyp should be captured and tented away from the colonic wall to prevent perforation. The colonic lumen should be slightly deflated, and electrocautery is then applied. Application of electrical current by a coagulation wave removes the polyp and burns the surrounding tissue. The disadvantages of this method are a 17% to 34% risk of residual polyp; increased risk of coagulation syndrome, perforation, and delayed bleeding; and impaired histological evaluation of the biopsy specimen [14-16]. The right colon is particularly vulnerable to transmural injury. Great care must be taken when performing HFP in the right colon. For these reasons, the Korean guidelines for colonoscopic polypectomy do not routinely recommend HFP for the removal of diminutive and small polyps [17].
Cold snare polypectomy
Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has recently been accepted as the ideal method for the resection of diminutive and small polyps. The technique of CSP is performed as follows. First, the lesion should be placed at the 5 o’clock position. The snare opens and encircles the polyp without air aspiration. Then, the snare slowly captures the polyp with at least 1 to 2 mm of surrounding normal tissue. The polyp is guillotined and should not be lifted or tented until complete closure is achieved. The polyp can then be suctioned through the working channel into the trap [18]. The advantages of CSP are a short procedure time, high complete resection rate, and low complication rate. In a recent prospective, randomized trial, CSP with a snare exclusively designed as a cold snare (Exacto cold snare; US Endoscopy, Mentor, OH, USA) resulted in complete polyp removal more often than did CSP with a traditional snare [19]. Snares exclusively designed as cold snares (with features such as thinner wires or a different shield shape) may be more efficient for resection and easier to use for cutting than traditional snares.
Hot snare polypectomy
Hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is a polyp removal method in which a polyp is grasped by a snare and then removed by electrocautery. Electrocautery can cause damage to the proper muscle layer and then lead to coagulation syndrome or perforation. Therefore, HSP should be used with some caution in comparison to CSP. First, to avoid grasping excess normal tissue, a polyp with minimal normal tissue should be captured by the snare. Second, the ensnared polyp should be tented away from the colonic wall and the lumen should be deflated prior to the application of electrocautery to minimize the risk of transmural injury. The following are three types of electric currents used in HSP: pure cut, coagulation, and blended. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal type of current that should be used. Generally, a blended or coagulation current, rather than a pure cut current, is recommend for polypectomy because of the bleeding risk.
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has generally become an accepted curative treatment for large polyps up to 20 mm in size. EMR allows the resection of the mucosa, muscularis mucosa, and a part or even all of the submucosa. The technique of EMR technique involves the following. First, the polyp should be elevated by a submucosal injection. The elevated polyp is grasped in a polypectomy snare and removed by an electric current. The submucosal cushion reduces the risk of perforation and improves the chances of complete resection. Therefore, it is vital to maintain sufficient elevation of the lesion throughout the procedure [20]. Normal saline without epinephrine is the most common solution used for the injection. Normal saline is rapidly absorbed, and a repeated injection may be necessary. Dextrose, hyaluronic acid, glycerol, or other solutions have been used to allow longer-lasting injection, but are generally reserved for a submucosal dissection.
WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL TECHNIQUE FOR THE REMOVAL OF DIMINUTIVE AND SMALL POLYPS?
A colon polypectomy is associated with a 65% relative reduction in colorectal cancer deaths, but incomplete polypectomy is the main known cause of interval cancer [21-23]. An optimal technique for the removal of diminutive and small polyps must satisfy many conditions that include high complete resection rate, low complication rate, easy available technique, and short procedure time. Comparison of relative strengths and weakness of techniques for the removal of diminutive and small polyps are summarized in Table 1.
A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CSP or jumbo biopsy polypectomy decrease the risk of incomplete diminutive polyp removal by 60%, without increasing the total procedure time or complication rates [24]. In a subgroup analysis of this study, three randomized trials showed that CSP reduces the risk of incomplete removal by 79%, and two randomized trials showed that jumbo biopsy polypectomy reduces the risk of incomplete removal by 52% [12,25-27], Therefore, CSP was found to be associated with the lowest rate of incomplete removal, making it a very effective polypectomy method.
In the past, HFP was widely accepted as an effective method of enhancing the complete resection rate and inducing simultaneous hemostasis because of the additional effect of electrocautery burning the surrounding tissue. Contrary to these perceptions, however, several studies of HFP and CFP for the removal of diminutive and small polyps have shown that there is not a statistically significant difference in the complete resection rate between the two methods. HFP is associated with a higher rate of complications, such as bleeding and perforation [10,16,28]. In addition, a recently reported comparative study between jumbo forceps polypectomy and HFP showed that jumbo forceps polypectomy is superior to HFP in terms of histological quality (96% vs. 80%) and complete resection rate (87.5% vs. 76.1%) [29]. For these reasons, HPF is not recommended as the first-line treatment for diminutive and small polyp removal in Korea.
Several studies have compared CSP and HSP for the removal of diminutive and small polyps. CSP was found to be superior to HSP in terms of procedure time [30-33]. In HFP, complications, such as bleeding, required additional intervention, and post-procedural abdominal symptoms were similar to CFP or developed more frequently [30,32]. A prospective randomized controlled study has shown that immediate bleeding (5.7% vs. 23%) and delayed bleeding (0% vs. 14%) were more common with conventional polypectomy compared with CSP [34]. This study demonstrated that CSP is preferred for the removal of small colorectal polyps in patients taking anticoagulants without stopping the medication. EMR is the standard treatment for the removal of large or non-pedunculated polyps. However, there have been few comparative studies of EMR and other techniques for the removal of diminutive and small polyps. A submucosal injection as prophylaxis for delayed bleeding and electric damage can sometimes facilitate the grasping of a difficult portion of the polyp. Therefore, EMR is considered an option for the removal of diminutive and small polyps in some cases.
CONCLUSIONS
All neoplastic polyps should be completely removed because interval cancer may be correlated with incomplete polypectomy. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal method to remove diminutive and small polyps. Recent studies have shown that CSP is a safer and more effective method. Therefore, CSP should be considered first for the removal of diminutive and small polyps. Based on circumstances, however, a cold forceps or jumbo forceps polypectomy may be considered for the removal of diminutive polyps, while HSP or EMR may be considered for the removal of small polyps.
Conflicts of Interest: The author has no financial conflicts of interest.
REFERENCESJungKWWonYJKongHJCancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2012Cancer Res Treat201547127141NishiharaRWuKLochheadPLong-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopyN Engl J Med201336910951105BrennerHChang-ClaudeJSeilerCMRickertAHoffmeisterMProtection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control studyAnn Intern Med20111542230HassanCPickhardtPJKimDHSystematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopyAliment Pharmacol Ther201031210217ShinSJLeeSHParkDIA Korean National Survey for treatment modality in colon polypectomyIntest Res20119196205MatsudaTKawanoHHisabeTCurrent status and future perspectives of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of diminutive colorectal polypsDig Endosc201426 Suppl 2104108SinghNHarrisonMRexDKA survey of colonoscopic polypectomy practices among clinical gastroenterologistsGastrointest Endosc200460414418JungYSParkJHKimHJComplete biopsy resection of diminutive polypsEndoscopy20134510241029EfthymiouMTaylorACDesmondPVAllenPBChenRYBiopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polypsEndoscopy201143312316WoodsASanowskiRAWadasDDManneRKFriessSWEradication of diminutive polyps: a prospective evaluation of bipolar coagulation versus conventional biopsy removalGastrointest Endosc198935536540LiuSHoSBKrinskyMLQuality of polyp resection during colonoscopy: are we achieving polyp clearance?Dig Dis Sci20125717861791DraganovPVChangMNAlkhasawnehARandomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polypsGastrointest Endosc201275118126ParkSKKoBMHanJPHongSJLeeMSA prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polypsGastrointest Endosc201683527532e1VanagunasAJacobPVakilNAdequacy of “hot biopsy” for the treatment of diminutive polyps: a prospective randomized trialAm J Gastroenterol198984383385PelusoFGoldnerFFollow-up of hot biopsy forceps treatment of diminutive colonic polypsGastrointest Endosc199137604606TsaiCJLuDKSmall colorectal polyps: histopathology and clinical significanceAm J Gastroenterol199590988994LeeSHShinSJParkDIKorean guidelines for colonoscopic polypectomyKorean J Gastroenterol2012598598HewettDGCold snare polypectomy: optimizing technique and technology (with videos)Gastrointest Endosc201582693696HoriuchiAHosoiKKajiyamaMTanakaNSanoKGrahamDYProspective, randomized comparison of 2 methods of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polypsGastrointest Endosc201582686692GostoutCJOde to the submucosal fluid cushionEndoscopy200436638639RobertsonDJLiebermanDAWinawerSJColorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysisGut201463949956FarrarWDSawhneyMSNelsonDBLederleFABondJHColorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopyClin Gastroenterol Hepatol2006412591264PabbyASchoenREWeissfeldJLAnalysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary polyp prevention trialGastrointest Endosc200561385391RaadDTripathiPCooperGFalck-YtterYRole of the cold biopsy technique in diminutive and small colonic polyp removal: a systematic review and meta-analysisGastrointest Endosc201683508515LeeCKShimJJJangJYCold snare polypectomy vs. cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized studyAm J Gastroenterol201310815931600GomezVBadilloRJCrookJEKrishnaMDiehlNNWallaceMBDiminutive colorectal polyp resection comparing hot and cold snare and cold biopsy forceps polypectomy. Results of a pilot randomized, single-center study (with videos)Endosc Int Open20153E76E80KimJSLeeBIChoiHCold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trialGastrointest Endosc201581741747WadasDDSanowskiRAComplications of the hot biopsy forceps techniqueGastrointest Endosc1988343237YasarBKayadibiHAbutEBenekDKochanKGonenCThe histological quality and adequacy of diminutive colorectal polyps resected using jumbo versus hot biopsy forcepsDig Dis Sci201560217225AslanFCamciMAlperECold snare polypectomy versus hot snare polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polypsTurk J Gastroenterol201425279283HoriuchiAMakinoTIchiseYKajiyamaMKatoNTanakaNComparison of newly found polyps after removal of small colorectal polyps with cold or hot snare polypectomyActa Gastroenterol Belg201578406410IchiseYHoriuchiANakayamaYTanakaNProspective randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polypsDigestion2011847881PaspatisGATriboniasGKonstantinidisKA prospective randomized comparison of cold vs hot snare polypectomy in the occurrence of postpolypectomy bleeding in small colonic polypsColorectal Dis201113e345e348HoriuchiANakayamaYKajiyamaMTanakaNSanoKGrahamDYRemoval of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomyGastrointest Endosc201479417423Table
Endoscopic Techniques for Resection of Diminutive and Small Polyps
Endoscopic technique
Advantages
Disadvantages
Recommendation
Cold forceps polypectomy
Easy, simple technique
Low complete resection rate
Therapeutic option for removal of diminutive polyps
Short procedure time
Low complication rate
Hot forceps polypectomy
Easy technique
Low complete resection rate
No recommendation for removal of small and diminutive polyps
Short procedure time
High complication rate
Cold snare polypectomy
Short procedure time
-
Most ideal technique for removal of small and diminutive polyps