ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Endoscopic management of giant colonic polyps: a retrospective Italian study.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safe endoscopic resection of a giant pedunculated colonic polyp after epinephrine volume reduction with clip placement.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for pathological upgrading in colorectal polyps based on endoscopic forceps biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Large colorectal lesions: Expanding the boundaries of endoscopic management.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Endoscopic approaches for the management of giant colonic polyps.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsPolyps greater than 30 mm are classified as "giants". Their endoscopic removal represents a technical challenge. The choice of the endoscopic removal technique is important because it provides a resection sample for precise histopathological staging. This is pivotal for diagnostic, prognostic, and management purposes.
methodsFrom a retrospective analysis, we obtained a sample of 38 giant polyps. Eighteen polypectomies were performed using the epinephrine volume reduction (EVR) method, nine polypectomies utilized endo-looping or clipping methods, and 11 patients underwent surgery.
resultsWe obtained en bloc resection with the EVR method in all cases; histology confirmed the correct indication for endoscopic resection in all cases. Moreover, no early or delayed complications were observed, and no patient required hospitalization. Using endo-looping or clipping methods, we observed advanced histology in 1/9 (11.1%) cases, while another patient (1/9, 11.1%) had delayed bleeding. Among patients who underwent surgery, 5/11 (45.5%) were deemed overtreated and three had post-surgical complications.
conclusionsWe propose EVR as an alternative technique for giant polyp resection due to its safety, effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and the advantage of avoiding the need to postpone polypectomy to a later time. Further prospective studies might help improve this experience and enhance the technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.