A122 OUTCOMES OF COLD SNARE POLYPECTOMY FOR POLYPS GREATER THAN 20 MM: DATA FROM AN ACADEMIC CENTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is widely utilized for resection of small polyps (less than 10mm), due to the technique’s favourable safety profile. However, Hot Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (HSEMR) remains the standard of care for large polyps greater than or equal to 20mm. HSEMR carries an increased risk of complications. These include delayed bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy syndrome, along with residual or recurrent adenomatous (RRA). More recently, Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (CSEMR) technique has been used selectively for polyps greater than 20mm. Published studies have demonstrated a significantly lower adverse event rate of complications as compared with HSEMR. RRA utilizing CSP remains a concern, with a recent publication reporting a recurrence of 34.8% on follow-up endoscopy. We present the experience at a single Canadian academic centre with patients undergoing CSEMR for polyps greater than 20mm. Aims To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection CSEMR of large (greater than or equal to 20mm) polyps at a single Canadian academic centre. Methods We retrospectively reviewed colonoscopies performed by endoscopists employing this technique at our centre from January 2020 to August 2021. 15 total cases were identified for patients with polyps greater than or equal to 20 mm, removed by CSEMR technique. Results Patient age ranged from 41 to 76, with a median patient age was 66. There were 10 males and 5 females. There were no adverse events intraoperatively. 15/15 (100%) polyps were successfully resected using CSEMR technique. Polyp size ranged from 2 cm to 7 cm, and there was a median polyp size of 3 cm. 14/15 (93%) polyps were proximal to the splenic flexure, with 1/15 (7%) polyp in the rectum. 6/15 (40%) patients received snare tip soft coagulation to the edges of the polypectomy site. Polyp histology included 7 tubular adenomas, 3 tubulovillous adenomas, 4 sessile serrated polyps, and one hyperplastic polyp. Two patients were on aspirin 81 mg daily, and there were zero patients on any other antiplatelets or anticoagulation. 1/15 patient presented with late bleeding requiring emergent colonoscopy. There were no immediate or delayed perforations or other serious adverse events recorded. Approximately 50% of patients have had follow-up colonoscopy within 3–6 months of their initial procedure. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 252 days, with a median time to follow up of 171 days. 3/7 (43%) patients had histologic evidence of recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy, all of which were successfully treated endoscopically. Conclusions Selective CSEMR is a safe and effective technique, with a low risk of complications. There may be a higher rate of residual polyp at follow-up colonoscopy compared to HSEMR. This data will need further validation with a larger sample size. Funding Agencies None
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".