ArticleDEN open2026
Safety Profile of Low-Power Pure-Cut Hot Snare Polypectomy for 10-14 mm Nonpedunculated Colorectal Neoplasms.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Safety Profile of Low-Power Pure-Cut Hot Snare Polypectomy for 10-14 mm Nonpedunculated Colorectal Neoplasms.DEN open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The reported rate of delayed bleeding (DB) after hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for 10-19-mm polyps is 2.1%-2.8%, which is non-negligible. We hypothesized that a low-power pure-cut current (LPPC) yields a lower risk of DB than a coagulation current, and we evaluated the safety of LPPC HSP for colorectal polyps. Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, consecutive patients who underwent LPPC HSP for nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms sized 10-14 mm at two Japanese institutions from December 2018 to March 2022 were evaluated. We analyzed the treatment outcomes of LPPC HSP and compared the DB rate of LPPC HSP with that of the historical control of HSP, which was set as 2.1% based on a previous meta-analysis. Results: A total of 339 patients (410 lesions sized 10-14 mm) were identified. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.9% and 86.7%, respectively. Immediate bleeding requiring hemostasis developed in four lesions (1.0%). No perforations occurred. DB occurred in two patients; both had to be admitted but were conservatively managed without endoscopic hemostasis or blood transfusion. The DB rate was 0.6% for patients and 0.5% for lesions. LPPC HSP was associated with a 71.4% lower risk of DB than the historical control, with a power of 80.4% and a two-sided significance level of 0.1. Conclusions: Considering its safety profile and resectability, LPPC HSP has the potential to supersede conventional resection methods. It may also be feasible for patients taking antithrombotic agents, who have a higher risk of DB.
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.