Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Endoscopy
DOI: 10.1055/a-2783-3897
Systematic review

Approaches to assessing completeness of polyp resections in clinical practice: a systematic scoping review

Authors

  • Querijn N.E. van Bokhorst

    1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN522567)
    2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
    3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Silpa Yarra

    4   Division of Gastroenterology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12296)
  • Manon van der Vlugt

    1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN522567)
    2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
    3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Heiko Pohl

    5   Division of Gastroenterology, White River Junction VA Medical Center, White River Junction, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN20127)
  • Evelien Dekker

    1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN522567)
    2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN571165)
    3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Aasma Shaukat

    4   Division of Gastroenterology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN12296)

Background Protocols for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection are lacking. This may contribute to divergent quality standards and hinder reliable comparison of incomplete resection rates (IRRs) across resection devices, techniques, endoscopists and institutions. To inform the development of such protocols, we aimed to review available methods. Methods We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 30, 2024. Studies describing the use or validation of methods for assessing completeness of polyp resections were included. Studies using recurrence detected at follow-up or histopathological resection specimen margin assessment as outcome measure were excluded, unless used as a reference standard for evaluation of other methods. Results Forty-five eligible studies were identified. Methods proposed to assist in visual confirmation of complete resection included the use of image enhancement techniques (n=6), artificial intelligence (n=1), and resection defect diameter (n=1). Methods for measuring IRRs based on a histopathological reference standard involved biopsy sampling (n=29) and extended margin resection (n=8). IRR measurement protocols differed in terms of factors such as location and number of biopsies (1-8), and widths of extended resections (1-3 mm). IRRs exceeding 10% were observed for all polyp size categories and almost all resection techniques, with considerable variability in IRRs reported across studies (biopsy sampling: 0-24.2%; extended resection: 0-61.1%). Conclusions Different methods are available to assist in visual confirmation of complete resection and measuring IRRs, with considerable variability in their application. This review highlights the need for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection.



Publication History

Received: 19 June 2025

Accepted after revision: 07 January 2026

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 January 2026

© . The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany