MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

549 Efficacy and Safety of Non-Elevated Piecemeal Polypectomy Using Hot Snare

2019· article· en· W2980059133 on OpenAlexaff
Sahil Sharma, Akhil Sharma, Vladislav Khokhotva

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian College of OsteopathyUniversity of WindsorWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolypectomyPerforationSurgeryAdenomaEndoscopyColonoscopyAdverse effectTubular adenomaGeneral surgeryColorectal cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Piecemeal polypectomy refers to the removal of large sessile colonic polyps by means of multiple snarings and is commonly performed after submucosal injection of a liquid, typically normal saline. Some reports suggest submucosal injection may not be benign, due to concerns of needle tracking of neoplastic cells, and difficulty in removal of recurrences due to scarring after injection. There is a paucity of recent literature describing polypectomy without submucosal injection. Historically, non-elevated piecemeal polypectomy has been criticized for concerns regarding bleeding and perforation. The purpose of this study was to describe a retrospective review of colonic polyps removed using non-elevated piecemeal polypectomy and associated outcomes. METHODS: An outpatient endoscopy center database was searched for patients who had large (≥3.0) sessile polyps excised using non-elevated piecemeal polypectomy technique between December 2012 and December 2018. All polyps with invasive cancer were excluded (n = 3). Chart review was carried out to extract demographic data, outcomes and adverse events. Details of all subsequent colonoscopies, including recurrences, residual tissue, or need for surgery were recorded. RESULTS: During the study period, 73 patients underwent 78 non-elevated piecemeal polypectomies for polyps ≥3 cm. There were 27 (37%) female patients and 46 (63%) male patients. Most common polyp sizes were between 3.5 cm to 3.9 cm (48.7%) or ≥4 cm (52.6%). Tubulovillous adenoma was the most frequent histological subtype (48.7%). Most polypectomies occurred in the right colon (54.4%). There were zero events of perforation. Ten (12.6%) patients had intraprocedural bleeding controlled endoscopically. Four patients (5.1%) had post-procedural bleeding, 3 required colonoscopy and clip hemostasis. There were 10 recurrences (12.8%), nine were found at the first endoscopic follow up and controlled by means of non-elevated hot snare polypectomy. One patient had a persistent recurrence and required subsequent surgical management for an adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Non-elevated piecemeal polypectomy with hot snare is a safe and effective technique for the removal of large sessile (≥3 cm) colonic polyps. Perforation and bleeding are uncommon. Recurrences are easily controlled by additional hot snare resection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207