4.7 Article

Use of a novel polyp ruler snare improves estimation of colon polyp size

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 83, Issue 4, Pages 812-816

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.082

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: Prior studies have demonstrated that endoscopists' estimates of polyp size are imprecise. The aim of this study was to determine whether a modified polypectomy ruler snare improves the accuracy of assessment of polyp size in real time without the use of additional devices. Methods: Ten artificial polyps of predetermined sizes (4 to 25 mm) were affixed to the inside of a colon model. A standard polypectomy snare was modified by adding 5-mm graduated markings to the distal end of the plastic sheath. Study participants estimated the sizes of the artificial polyps during simulated colonoscopies, first using a standard snare and then with the modified ruler snare. Results: Thirty-four private practice and academic gastroenterologists participated in the study. Endoscopists' ability to accurately classify polyps by size (diminutive, small, or large) improved from 48.5% to 60.3% with the ruler snare (P = .002). The greatest improvement in precision was seen among the large polyps, where accuracy increased from 35.9% to 58.2% with use of the ruler snare (P < .0001). Participants underestimated polyp size by a mean of 3.6 mm (interquartile range, -5 to -2 mm) with the standard snare and 1.8 mm (interquartile range, -3 to 0 mm) with the ruler snare, which corresponded to a 44.2% improvement in accuracy with the ruler snare (P < .05). Conclusions: The modified ruler snare improved polyp size assessment compared with a standard snare, particularly with large polyps. Overall, although size estimation continues to be imprecise, the addition of calibrated markings to a polypectomy snare is a simple and likely low-cost means to improve neoplasia surveillance recommendations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available