Background and Aim: The ideal method to remove small colorectal polyps is unknown. We compared removal by colon snare transection without electrocautery (cold snare polypectomy) with conventional electrocautery snare polypectomy (hot polypectomy) in terms of procedure duration, difficulty in retrieving polyps, bleeding, and post-polypectomy symptoms. Methods: Patients with colorectal polyps up to 8 mm in diameter were randomized to polypectomy by cold snare technique (cold group) or conventional polypectomy (conventional group). The principal outcome measures were abdominal symptoms within 2 weeks after polypectomy. Secondary outcome measures were the rates of retrieval of colorectal polyps and bleeding. Results: Eighty patients were randomized: cold group, n = 40 (101 polyps) and conventional group, n = 40 (104 polyps). The patients’ demographic characteristics and the number and size of polyps removed were similar between the two techniques. Procedure time was significantly shorter with cold polypectomy vs. conventional polypectomy (18 vs. 25 min, p < 0.0001). Complete polyp retrieval rates were identical [96% (97/101) vs. 96% (100/104)]. No bleeding requiring hemostasis occurred in either group. Abdominal symptoms shortly after polypectomy were more common with conventional polypectomy (i.e. 20%; 8/40) than with cold polypectomy (i.e. 2.5%; 1/40; p = 0.029). Conclusion: Cold polypectomy was superior to conventional polypectomy in terms of procedure time and post-polypectomy abdominal symptoms. The two methods were otherwise essentially identical in terms of bleeding risk and complete polyp retrieval. Cold polypectomy is therefore the preferred method for removal of small colorectal polyps.

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al: Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.
Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M, Italian multicentre study group: The Italian Multicentre Study Group: Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001;48:812–815.
Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neugut AI: Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:230–236.
Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA: Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:3418–3422.
Tappero G, De Giuli P, Gubetta L: Cold snare excision of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:310–313.
Ellis K, Shiel M, Marquis S, Katon R: Efficacy of hot biopsy forceps, cold micro-snare and microsnare with cautery techniques in the removal of diminutive colonic polyps (abstract). Gastrointest Endosc 1997;45:AB107.
Deenadayalu VP, Rex DK: Colon polyp retrieval after cold snaring. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:253–256.
Tolliver KA, Rex DK: Colonic polypectomy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2008;37:229–251.
Chey WD: The channel occlusion technique: a novel method of retrieving polyps following snare resection. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:1608–1609.
Sano Y, Kaihara T, Ito H, et al: A novel endoscopic device for retrieval of polyps resected from the colon and rectum. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:716–719.
Miller K, Waye JD: Polyp retrieval after colonoscopic polypectomy: use of the Roth Retrieval Net. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:505–517.
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al: US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer: Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1296–1308.
You do not currently have access to this content.