title: Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Polypectomy with cold biopsy forceps is a frequently used technique for removal of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Jumbo forceps may lead to more effective polypectomy because of the larger size of the forceps cup.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the efficiency of cold jumbo biopsy forceps compared with standard forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized, controlled trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Outpatient endoscopy center.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study involved 140 patients found to have at least one eligible polyp defined as a sessile polyp measuring ≤6 mm.
  
  
  METHODS
  Polypectomy with cold biopsy forceps.
  
  
  METHODS
  Complete visual polyp eradication with one forceps bite.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In 140 patients, a total of 305 eligible polyps were detected (151 removed with jumbo forceps and 154 with standard forceps). Complete visual eradication of the polyp with one forceps bite was achieved in 78.8% of the jumbo forceps group and 50.7% of the standard forceps group (P < .0001). Biopsies from the polypectomy sites of adenomatous polyps thought to be visually completely eradicated with one bite showed a trend toward a higher complete histologic eradication rate with the jumbo forceps (82.4%) compared with the standard forceps (77.4%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .62). The withdrawal time for visual inspection of the colon and time to perform polypectomies were significantly shorter in the jumbo forceps group (mean 21.43 vs 18.23 minutes; P = .02).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Lack of blinding to the type of forceps used.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The jumbo biopsy forceps is superior to the standard forceps in removing small, sessile polyps. (
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  NCT00855790.).
authors.affiliation: Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
authors.forename: Peter V
authors.initials: PV
authors.lastname: Draganov
authors.forename: Myron N
authors.initials: MN
authors.lastname: Chang
authors.forename: Ahmad
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Alkhasawneh
authors.forename: Lisa R
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Dixon
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lieb
authors.forename: Baharak
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Moshiree
authors.forename: Steven
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Polyak
authors.forename: Shahnaz
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sultan
authors.forename: Dennis
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Collins
authors.forename: Amitabh
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Suman
authors.forename: John F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Valentine
authors.forename: Mihir S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Wagh
authors.forename: Samir L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Habashi
authors.forename: Chris E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Forsmark
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003111:Colonic Polyps / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007417:Intestinal Polyps / Q000473:pathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012007:Rectum / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery; D012044:Regression Analysis; D013525:Surgical Instruments; D013997:Time Factors