Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background Cold resection of colorectal lesions is widely performed because of its safety and effectiveness; however, it remains uncertain whether adding submucosal injection could improve the efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) versus cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal lesions.

Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was complete resection. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection, and adverse events (AEs). Prespecified subgroup analyses based on the size and morphology of the polyps were performed. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, with corresponding 95%CIs, for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I ² statistics.

Results 7 RCTs were included, comprising 1556 patients, with 2287 polyps analyzed. C-EMR and CSP had similar risk ratios for complete resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98–1.07), en bloc resection (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82–1.41), and AEs (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41–1.32). C-EMR had a longer procedure time (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5–69.7 seconds). In stratified subgroup analyses, the risk was not statistically different between C-EMR and CSP for complete resection in polyps<10 mm or ≥10 mm, or for complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs in the two groups among nonpedunculated polyps.

Conclusions The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time.

PROSPERO: CRD42023439605.

Introduction

Endoscopic resection of adenomatous polyps reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and prevents CRC-related mortality [1] [2] [3]. Multiple interventions have been proposed to improve complete resection and mitigate the rate of adverse events (AEs) associated with endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been used as the preferred method for the removal of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps <10 mm because of its safety, effectiveness, and lower costs ([Fig. 1] a) [4] [5]; however, complete histologic resection rates with CSP vary widely (44%–96%) [6]. For the removal of sessile polyps of 10–19 mm in size, current guidelines recommend hot snare polypectomy (HSP), with or without submucosal injection [7] [8]. For pedunculated polyps, HSP is also the recommended first-line modality [7] [8].

Fig. 1 Endoscopic images of: a cold snare polypectomy; b cold endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of a saline solution with epinephrine and methylene blue.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) includes a submucosal injection of a given solution to lift the lesion away from the muscular layer, decreasing the risk of thermal transmural injury [9]. Some recent studies have reported that the addition of a submucosal injection to CSP, referred to as cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR), may be useful and represent a valuable adaptation of the standard cold snare technique ([Fig. 1] b) [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Data comparing CSP with C-EMR are however still scarce [17].

Two recent systematic reviews, both based mainly on observational studies, have evaluated C-EMR [18] [19]. Liang et al. [18] demonstrated that, although C-EMR is efficient for polyps measuring<20 mm, it did not improve the efficiency and safety of CSP and hot snare EMR as expected. Abdallah et al. [19] showed that C-EMR has a high technical success rate and an excellent safety profile, with variable recurrence rates based on polyp size and histology.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs, as well as the procedure time between CSP and C-EMR for the resection of colorectal lesions, analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed based on the size of the lesions and their morphology.

Methods

This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under protocol CRD42023439605.

Study outcomes and subgroup analysis

The primary outcome was complete lesion resection. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, en bloc resection, and AEs. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed based on the size of the lesions (<10 mm and ≥10 mm), and the morphology (pedunculated and nonpedunculated).

Eligibility criteria

We selected studies based on the following inclusion criteria: (i) RCTs; (ii) comparing C-EMR with CSP; (iii) for resection of colorectal lesions in adult patients undergoing colonoscopy; and (iv) reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. Only studies published as original full-text, peer-reviewed articles were included. Editorials, letters, reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded.

Search strategy

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria, published until 1 June 2023. The search strategy is detailed in Appendix 1s, see online-only Supplementary material. Two reviewers (P.A.E.S. and S.B.) conducted the search, imported results into Zotero 6.0, and triaged the studies. After the exclusion of duplicates and titles/abstracts clearly not related to the clinical question, the eligibility of each remaining study was assessed based on review of the full-text articles. We also searched for any additional studies from the references of the included RCTs, as well as from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Disagreements were solved by a third author (G.C.M.).

Data extraction

Two authors (P.A.E.S. and S.B.) extracted the data into a standardized format, including study characteristics (first author, year of publication); study population (number of patients, age, sex); polyp characteristics (number, size, location, and morphology); complete resection rate; en bloc resection rate; AE rate; and procedure time.

Definitions

Complete resection was defined as either no residual lesion in biopsy samples performed after polypectomy or when muscularis mucosae was present under the tumor along more than 80% of the tumor’s horizontal dimension (Table 1s). En bloc resection was defined as visual total polyp eradication judged by the endoscopist's experience.

Immediate bleeding was defined by all studies as clinically significant bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention during the procedure. Wei et al. [20] also included bleeding within 24 hours of the procedure as immediate bleeding.

Delayed bleeding was defined as clinically significant bleeding requiring hospitalization, blood transfusion, or endoscopic or surgical intervention within 14 days of polypectomy in three studies [6] [21] [22], whereas two others defined this outcome as bleeding within 30 days after polypectomy [5] [20]. Other studies did not specify their definition of delayed bleeding [4] [23].

Perforation was defined as visualization of an extraintestinal structure during the endoscopic examination or patients presenting with symptoms and signs of peritonitis within several hours after completion of the colonoscopy.

Assessment of the risk of bias

Quality assessment of RCTs was performed using the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2) [24]. Two authors (P.A.E.S. and E.C.B.) independently evaluated each included study for its risk of bias in five domains, and assigned a rating of high, low, or some concerns for each. Publication bias in the primary outcome was investigated by funnel plot analysis.

Data analysis and reporting

The systematic review and meta-analysis were designed and reported according to the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines [25] [26]. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95%CI for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference and 95%CI for continuous outcomes. The pooled estimates of RR or mean difference were calculated using a random-effects model, in which both within-study and between-study variations were considered. Not all studies provided the mean and SD of the sample. In this case, the data was calculated on the basis of the sample’s reported median and range, according to the methods devised by Luo et al. and Wan et al. [27] [28].

Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran’s Q test and I² statistics; P values <0.10 and I²>25% were considered to be significant for heterogeneity. For each end point, a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used. We also performed sensitivity analyses removing each individual study from the outcome assessment. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and OpenMeta (Analyst) Software.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

The literature search yielded 2552 results. As shown in [Fig. 2], after study triage, we included seven studies, with 1556 patients and 2287 polyps [4] [5] [6] [20] [21] [22] [23]. A total of 1176 (51.4%) lesions were removed using C-EMR and 1111 (48.5%) with CSP.

Fig. 2 PRISMA flow diagram of study screening and selection.

Most studies used saline solution with epinephrine, along with methylene blue or indigo carmine for submucosal injection in the C-EMR procedure. Wei et al. [20] used EverLift (a solution composed of water, glycerin, hydroxyethyl cellulose, benzyl alcohol, sodium and potassium phosphate, and methylene blue) and Rex et al. [23] reported the use of saline solution, hydroxyethyl starch, or any commercially available injection fluid.

Four studies included only nonpedunculated polyps [5] [20] [22] [23]. Li et al. [21] included pedunculated polyps in their analysis, constituting 16% of the evaluated colorectal lesions in the study. Katagiri et al. [4] and Kim et al. [6] did not provide specific information on the morphology of the polyps included.

[Table 1] summarizes the main characteristics of the included studies.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included randomized studies comparing cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP).

	Study First author, year [ref]
	Katagiri, 2023 [4]	Kim, 2023 [6]	Li, 2020 [21]	Mou, 2023 [5]	Rex, 2022 [23]	Shimodate, 2020 [22]
Patient characteristics
Patients, n	118	327	261	300	122	214
Age, mean or median, years	65.8	62.7	51.7	53.5	65.6	66.5
Male, n (%)	69 (58.5)	213 (65.1)	150 (57.4)	182 (60.6)	69 (56.5)	121 (56.5)
Polyp characteristics
Number of polyps, n
C-EMR	149	210	252	234	82	107
CSP	112	215	244	216	68	107
Polyp size, mean (SD) or median, mm
C-EMR	4.4 (1.8)	7.2 (1.4)	12.0 (3.4)	5	9.5 (2.8)	5
CSP	4.2 (1.8)	7.0 (1.2)	11.9 (3.3)	5	9.4 (3.1)	5
Proximal location, n (%)
C-EMR	108 (72)	117 (56)	133 (53)	111 (47)	62 (76)	50 (51)
CSP	73 (65)	136 (63)	149 (61)	89 (41)	55 (81)	44 (44)
Paris IIa/IIb, n (%)
C-EMR	98 (66)	N/A	33 (13)	127 (54)	47 (57)	30 (31)
CSP	82 (73)	N/A	27 (11)	110 (51)	32 (47)	41 (41)
Paris Is/Isp, n (%)
C-EMR	51 (34)	N/A	171 (68)	107 (46)	35 (43)	67 (69)
CSP	30 (27)	N/A	186 (76)	106 (49)	36 (53)	59 (59)
Pathologic diagnosis, n (%)
C-EMR	Adenoma, 111 (74.4) Serrated, 7 (4.7) Hyperplasic, 29 (19.4) Inflammatory, 1 (0.6)	Adenoma, 186 (88.6) Serrated, 5 (2.4) Hyperplasic, 16 (7.6) Adenocarcinoma, 3 (1.4)	Adenoma, 232 (92.0) Serrated, 19 (7.5) Adenocarcinoma, 1 (0.5)	Adenoma, 152 (64.9) Serrated, 8 (3.4) Hyperplasic, 51 (21.7) Inflammatory, 22 (9.4)	Adenoma, 61 (74.4) Serrated, 19 (23.2) Hyperplasic, 2 (2.4)	Adenoma, 92 (85.9) Serrated, 2 (1.9) Hyperplasic, 1 (0.9) Adenocarcinoma, 1 (0.9) Inflammatory, 1 (0.9)
CSP	Adenoma, 86 (76.8) Serrated, 10 (8.9) Hyperplasic, 13 (11.6) Inflammatory, 3 (2.7)	Adenoma, 196 (91.1) Serrated, 5 (2.3) Hyperplasic, 14 (6.5)	Adenoma, 223 (91.4) Serrated, 21 (8.6)	Adenoma, 142 (65.7) Serrated, 4 (1.8) Hyperplasic, 53 (24.5) Inflammatory, 14 (6.5)	Adenoma, 53 (77.9) Serrated, 10 (14.7) Hyperplasic, 3 (4.4)	Adenoma, 96 (89.7) Serrated, 1 (0.9) Hyperplasic, 1 (0.9) Inflammatory, 2 (1.9)

Quality assessment of the included studies

We conducted the quality assessment analysis using the RoB 2 tool [24]. As shown in Fig. 1s, because the endoscopists were aware of each patient's allocation group, there was a potential source of bias in each study. Publication bias was assessed by analyzing the funnel plot of complete resection. Owing to some asymmetry in the distribution, it is possible that small trials with negative results have not been published (Fig. 2s).

Primary outcome

The complete resection rate was reported in six studies, including 2026 polyps. The pooled estimated rate in the C-EMR group was 89.4% (95%CI 83.5%–95.4%), and in CSP group was 88.4% (95%CI 82.1%–94.6%). The risk of complete resection was similar for the C-EMR and CSP techniques (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98–1.05; I² = 72%) ([Fig. 3] a). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses confirmed no significant difference between C-EMR and CSP for the outcome of complete resection rate after the exclusion of each individual study and recalculation of results. Moreover, after excluding Li et al. [21], between-study heterogeneity dropped substantially, while still maintaining a similar risk for the groups (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.98–1.02; I² = 8%) (Fig. 3s).

Fig. 3 Forest plots showing no significant difference between the cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) techniques in terms of: a complete resection rate; b en bloc resection rate.

Secondary outcomes

En bloc resection

Five studies reported en bloc resection rates, including 1601 polyps. The pooled estimated rate in the C-EMR group was 87.5% (95%CI 79.3%–95.8%), and in the CSP group was 82.3% (95%CI 70.9%–93.6%). The risk was not significantly different for the C-EMR and CSP techniques (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82–1.41; I² = 99%) ([Fig. 3] b). The findings were also confirmed in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Similarly to the complete resection rate, heterogeneity derived predominantly from Li et al. [21]. After the exclusion of this trial, the results remained similar, and there was no evidence of between-study heterogeneity (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99–1.01; I² = 0%) (Fig. 4s).

Adverse events

All studies reported the overall rate of AEs, including 2287 polyps. The pooled estimated rate in the C-EMR group was 3.4% (95%CI 1.3%–5.5%), and in CSP group was 4.8% (95%CI 2.0%–7.6%). The risk was similar between C-EMR and CSP (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41–1.32; I² = 38%) ([Fig. 4]). In the leave-one-out analysis, the greatest heterogeneity was found to arise from the study of Kim et al. [6]. After the exclusion of this study, we found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of AEs in the C-EMR group, with nil between-study heterogeneity (RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.36–0.87; I² = 0%) (Fig. 5s).

Fig. 4 Forest plot of adverse events rate showing no significant difference between the cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) techniques.

Bleeding end points

Immediate bleeding was reported in all studies, including a total of 2287 polyps. The pooled estimated rate in the C-EMR group was 1.4% (95%CI 0.4%–2.3%), and in CSP group was 1.2% (95%CI 0.1%–2.3%). No significant difference in the risk of immediate bleeding was observed between the C-EMR and CSP groups (RR 1.18, 95%CI 0.36–3.86; I² = 56%) (Fig. 6s). These results were confirmed on leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Exclusion of Li et al. [21] removed all the between-study heterogeneity, and the results remained similar between the groups (RR 2.18, 95%CI 0.82–5.77; I² = 0%) (Fig. 7s).

Delayed bleeding was reported in six studies, including 2137 polyps. The pooled estimated rate in the C-EMR group was 0.6% (95%CI 0.01%–1.1%), and in CSP group was 0.5% (95%CI 0.1%–0.9%). The risk was not significantly different between the C-EMR and CSP groups (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.39–2.44; I² = 0%) (Fig. 8s). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses confirmed these results after the exclusion of each trial.

Perforation

Six studies described the perforation rate in the procedures. A meta-analysis of this outcome was not possible owing to the absence of events. Only Li et al. [21] reported one event in the CSP group. Nevertheless, our meta-analysis shows that perforations are rare in both C-EMR and CSP.

Procedure time

Six studies reported procedure time, including 2073 polyps. The mean procedure time in the C-EMR group was 128.5 seconds (95%CI 86.6–170.3 seconds), and in the CSP group was 85.6 seconds (95%CI 38.8–132.3 seconds). The procedure time was longer with C-EMR than with CSP (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5–69.7 seconds; I² = 97%) ([Fig. 5]). In the leave-one-out analysis, procedural duration remained longer in the C-EMR group with the removal of each individual study. No single study was solely responsible for the high heterogeneity in this outcome.

Fig. 5 Forest plot of procedure time showing cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was associated with a shorter procedure time than cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR), but with significant heterogeneity among the studies.

Subgroup analysis

In a stratified subgroup analysis based on lesion size, the risk of complete resection was similar between C-EMR and CSP for polyps<10 mm (RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.99–1.04; I² = 46%) and polyps>10 mm (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.82–1.44; I ² = 94%) (Fig. 9s).

In a stratified subgroup analysis based on nonpedunculated morphology, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of complete resection (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.98–1.02; I² = 22%) (Fig. 10s); en bloc resection (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.99–1.01; I² = 0%) (Fig. 11s); or AEs (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.30–1.31; I² = 18%) (Fig. 12s) between C-EMR and CSP. C-EMR was also associated with a longer procedure time when analyzing only nonpedunculated polyps (mean difference 73.2 seconds, 95%CI 63.3–83.1 seconds; I² = 0%) (Fig. 13s).

A summary of the findings with their grades of evidence is shown in Table 2s.

Discussion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of seven RCTs, we compared C-EMR with CSP for the resection of colorectal polyps. The main findings were as follows. (i) No significant difference was observed in the likelihood of complete resection between the C-EMR and CSP techniques, including on stratified analyses by size and morphology of the polyps. (ii) There was no significant difference in the risk of either en bloc resection or AEs between the groups, even on stratified analyses by morphology of the polyps. (iii) C-EMR was associated with a statistically significant longer procedure time, even when considering stratified analysis by nonpedunculated morphology of the polyps.

Most of the available evidence regarding the efficacy of C-EMR for the resection of colorectal polyps is derived primarily from observational studies [13] [14] [15] [16] [29]. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies describing C-EMR reported a complete resection rate of 96.3% for the resection of colorectal polyps ≤20 mm and a single-arm meta-analysis showed a complete resection rate of 99.1% when analyzing C-EMR in polyps ≥10 mm [17] [18] [30]. The incomplete resection rate was also very low (3.8%) with C-EMR for 4–20 mm polyps in a recent observational study [31].

Other studies have focused primarily on comparing C-EMR with EMR, as the former could potentially prevent thermal injury and other disadvantages of electrocautery use. A meta-analysis of sessile serrated polyps>10 mm reported lower delayed bleeding rates for C-EMR compared with conventional EMR [32]; however, there was still uncertainty as to whether C-EMR could reduce AEs relative to CSP.

C-EMR could theoretically bring more safety to endoscopic resection and protect against perforations through the submucosal cushion it provides [17]. But our series showed only one occurrence of perforation in the control group (1111 CSP procedures), raising doubts about the need to perform routine C-EMR to prevent such an infrequent event. Importantly, major AEs were infrequent in both groups.

Previous studies showed AE rates lower than 5.4% for C-EMR [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [21] [29] [33]. Tziatzios et al. showed in their network meta-analysis [34] that, in terms of preventing AEs, there is a benefit to choosing C-EMR over EMR; however, when comparing C-EMR to CSP, there was no statistically significant difference [5] [20] [23] [34]. Our results, which included a larger number of RCTs, also showed equivalent safety for C-EMR and CSP.

After conducting a sensitivity analysis for overall AE rate and excluding Kim et al. [6], we found a significant benefit of C-EMR compared with CSP, and the heterogeneity was eliminated (RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.36–0.87; I² = 0%). The high between-study heterogeneity and the change in the overall AE rate after sensitivity analysis could be attributed to the fact that Kim et al. did not include minor AEs in their analyses, nor did they provide specific data about polyp morphology, so the number of pedunculated polyps was unknown.

The longer procedure time associated with C-EMR (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5–69.7; I² = 97%) can be explained by the fact that C-EMR requires additional time for submucosal injection. The elevated heterogeneity among studies for this outcome is likely due to differences between endoscopic experience and other procedural variations between different institutions. As there is no evidence demonstrating the superiority of C-EMR over CSP in terms of the efficacy and safety outcomes, we conclude that prolonging the procedure time with C-EMR is not justified in this population. Further studies with stratified analyses (i.e. by polyp histology and location) could however potentially identify the benefits of this technique for specific populations.

Concerning the moderate-to-high heterogeneity identified in several outcomes, the inclusion of pedunculated polyps in one RCT [21] and the lack of morphology information in another two [4] [6], which raises the question of whether the latter also included pedunculated polyps, may be contributing factors. The subgroup analysis of nonpedunculated polyps showed similar results with low heterogeneity across all outcomes. Additionally, sensitivity analyses excluding the study by Li et al. [21], in which 16% of the evaluated colorectal lesions were pedunculated, resulted in a reduction in the heterogeneity in the outcomes of complete resection, en bloc resection, and immediate bleeding. These findings suggest that the inclusion of pedunculated polyps may be the primary cause of the heterogeneity identified.

There are also some peculiarities regarding the histology and location of the polyps that may also contribute to the heterogeneity. It is postulated that the soft consistency of some histologic types of polyps, such as sessile serrated polyps, maximizes the effectiveness of a cold snaring approach, making them potentially more susceptible to C-EMR [32]. The residual adenoma rate of sessile serrated polyps <20 mm after C-EMR was 1% in the study by Thoguluva Chandrasekar et al. [32]. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that this modality would be more appropriate for large and right-sided sessile serrated polyps, with the aim of minimizing AEs [32]. In our meta-analysis, the commonest histologic polyp type was adenoma in both groups (C-EMR, 86.5%; CSP, 87.8%), but we were not able to provide a subgroup analysis based on histology owing to the lack of stratified analysis by polyp histology in the included RCTs.

Moreover, it is important to highlight that variations in patient characteristics among the studies might have influenced the heterogeneity. For instance, although all studies shared the common inclusion criteria of adult patients undergoing colonoscopy, Wei et al. [20] specifically focused on a male population, which comprised 97.6% of their study cohort.

There are several strengths in our study, primarily the randomized nature of the included studies, with these not being subject to the risk of confounding factors that are present in observational data. In addition, the overall number of polyps included in the meta-analysis was large (2287 polyps) and we used rigorous methods that were prespecified in the meta-analysis protocol.

This systematic review also has several limitations. First, we could not stratify all outcomes by lesion characteristics including location (proximal, distal, rectal) and histology owing to the lack of individual patient-level data. Second, we found moderate-to-high levels of heterogeneity for some outcomes, which may be related to differences in patient and polyp characteristics as discussed previously. In addition, interendoscopist variability in performance likely exists in most centers, including those with esteemed experts, as highlighted in a recently published editorial [35]. Importantly, despite the heterogeneity, our results were consistent on leave-one-out sensitivity analysis for most results, with the exception of AEs, as discussed previously. Finally, it should be noted that analyzing multiple polyps from the same patient may lead to statistical dependencies.

In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

We would like to extend our deep appreciation to Dr. Rhanderson Cardoso and his dedicated team for their invaluable guidance in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

• References

• 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. NEJM 2012; 366: 687-696 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100370. (PMID: 22356322)
• 2 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. NEJM 1993; 329: 1977-1981 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199312303292701. (PMID: 8247072)
• 3 Pan J, Xin L, Ma YF. et al. colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in patients with non-malignant findings: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 355-365
• 4 Katagiri A, Suzuki N, Nakatani S. et al. Submucosal injection using epinephrine-added saline in cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps shortens time required for resection: a randomized controlled study. Cureus 2023; 15: e39164 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39164. (PMID: 37332405)
• 5 Mou Y, Ye L, Qin X. et al. Impact of submucosal saline injection during cold snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps sized 3–9 mm: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118: 1848-1854
• 6 Kim MJ, Na SY, Kim JS. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2023; 37: 3789-3795 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09875-1. (PMID: 36690892)
• 7 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-102569. (PMID: 28212588)
• 8 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions: Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 486-519 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.018. (PMID: 32122632)
• 9 Gaglia A, Sarkar S. Evaluation and long-term outcomes of the different modalities used in colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Ann Gastroenterol 2017; 30: 145-151 DOI: 10.20524/aog.2016.0104. (PMID: 28243034)
• 10 Muniraj T, Sahakian A, Ciarleglio MM. et al. Cold snare polypectomy for large sessile colonic polyps: a single-center experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015: 175959 DOI: 10.1155/2015/175959. (PMID: 25878658)
• 11 Tutticci NJ, Hewett DG. Cold EMR of large sessile serrated polyps at colonoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 837-842 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.002. (PMID: 29133196)
• 12 Piraka C, Saeed A, Waljee AK. et al. Cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated colon polyps greater than 1 cm. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E184-E189
• 13 Rameshshanker R, Tsiamoulos Z, Latchford A. et al. Resection of large sessile serrated polyps by cold piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection: Serrated Cold Piecemeal Endoscopic mucosal resection (SCOPE). Endoscopy 2018; 50: E165-E167 DOI: 10.1055/a-0599-0346. (PMID: 29742770)
• 14 Yabuuchi Y, Imai K, Hotta K. et al. Efficacy and safety of cold-snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal adenomas 10 to 14 mm in size: a prospective observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 1239-1246 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.05.019. (PMID: 32464143)
• 15 Mangira D, Cameron K, Simons K. et al. Cold snare piecemeal EMR of large sessile colonic polyps ≥20 mm (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1343-1352
• 16 McWhinney CD, Vemulapalli KC, El Rahyel A. et al. Adverse events and residual lesion rate after cold endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated lesions ≥10 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 654-659 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.032. (PMID: 32891621)
• 17 Tziatzios G, Gkolfakis P, Papadopoulos V. et al. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions. Ann Gastroenterol 2021; 34: 757-769 DOI: 10.20524/aog.2021.0647. (PMID: 34815641)
• 18 Liang Z, Wei Y, Zhang S. et al. The efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy with submucosal injection for the removal of polyps less than 20 mm in size: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 38: 1892-1899
• 19 Abdallah M, Ahmed K, Abbas D. et al. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 1083-1094 DOI: 10.1055/a-2129-5752. (PMID: 37451284)
• 20 Wei MT, Louie CY, Chen Y. et al. Randomized controlled trial investigating use of submucosal injection of EverLiftTM in rates of complete resection of non-pedunculated 4–9 mm polyps. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022; 37: 1273-1279
• 21 Li D, Wang W, Xie J. et al. Efficacy and safety of three different endoscopic methods in treatment of 6–20 mm colorectal polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020; 55: 362-370
• 22 Shimodate Y, Itakura J, Takayama H. et al. Impact of submucosal saline solution injection for cold snare polypectomy of small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 715-722.e1
• 23 Rex D, Anderson J, Pohl H. et al. Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 330-338 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.03.006. (PMID: 35288147)
• 24 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. (PMID: 31462531)
• 25 Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane. 2023 Accessed February 19, 2024 at: http://handbook.cochrane.org
• 26 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. (PMID: 33782057)
• 27 Luo D, Wan X, Liu J. et al. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27: 1785-1805 DOI: 10.1177/0962280216669183. (PMID: 27683581)
• 28 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J. et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. (PMID: 25524443)
• 29 van Hattem WA, Shahidi N, Vosko S. et al. Piecemeal cold snare polypectomy versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective comparison across two successive periods. Gut 2021; 70: 1691-1697 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321753. (PMID: 33172927)
• 30 Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Spadaccini M, Aziz M. et al. Cold snare endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and pooled-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 929-936.e3
• 31 Motchum L, Djinbachian R, Rahme E. et al. Incomplete resection rates of 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps when using wide-field cold snare resection with routine submucosal injection. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E480-E489
• 32 Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Aziz M, Patel HK. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of sessile serrated polyps 10 mm or larger: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2448-2455.e3 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.041. (PMID: 31786330)
• 33 Papastergiou V, Paraskeva KD, Fragaki M. et al. Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6–10 mm: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 403-411 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-118594. (PMID: 28898922)
• 34 Tziatzios G, Papaefthymiou A, Facciorusso A. et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of resection techniques for treating 6 to 20mm, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis 2023; 55: 856-864 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.10.011. (PMID: 36336608)
• 35 Holme Ø. Are we ready for the cold snare revolution?. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 938-939 DOI: 10.1055/a-2025-0997. (PMID: 36827990)

Publication History

Received: 13 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 12 February 2024

Article published online:
19 March 2024