Literature DB >> 12626901

Randomized trial of rubber band ligation vs. stapled hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed piles.

Benedict C Peng1, David G Jayne, Yik-Hong Ho.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The introduction of stapled hemorrhoidectomy may replace local techniques such as rubber band ligation as a first-line treatment for Grade III and small Grade IV piles. We conducted a randomized trial to determine the role of rubber band ligation in the era of stapled hemorrhoidectomy.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients with Grade III or small Grade IV hemorrhoids were randomly allocated to either rubber band ligation or stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Patient demographics and procedure-related details were recorded. Follow-up was at two weeks and two and six months to assess complications, symptom relief, incontinence scores, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were randomly assigned to rubber band ligation and 30 to stapled hemorrhoidectomy. The groups were equally matched for age, gender, grade of piles, continence scores, and quality of life. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy was associated with increased pain and analgesia usage at both 2-week and 2-month follow-up (P < 0.001). Rubber band ligation and stapled hemorrhoidectomy were equally effective in controlling symptomatic prolapse, but rubber band ligation was associated with an increased incidence of recurrent bleeding (P = 0.002). There were 6 procedure-related complications in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group compared with none in the rubber band ligation group (P = 0.027). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of continence scores, patient satisfaction, or quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is associated with more pain and minor morbidity than rubber band ligation in the treatment of Grade III and small Grade IV piles. However, for those patients who do not want the risk of further intervention procedures, stapled hemorrhoidectomy offers the better chance of a symptomatic cure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12626901     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-6543-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  9 in total

Review 1.  Documented complications of staple hemorrhoidopexy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Liesel J Porrett; Jemma K Porrett; Yik-Hong Ho
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2015-01

2.  Complications and reoperations in stapled anopexy: learning by doing.

Authors:  Johannes Jongen; Jens-Uwe Bock; Hans-Günter Peleikis; Anne Eberstein; Karin Pfister
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2005-06-11       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Stapled hemorrhoidopexy: the argument for usage.

Authors:  Marc Singer; Herand Abcarian
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2004-05

4.  Hemorrhoids.

Authors:  Amy Halverson
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-05

5.  Bilateral deep peroneal nerve paralysis following kerosene self-injection into external hemorrhoids.

Authors:  Khalil Rostami; Esmaeil Farzaneh; Hassan Abolhassani
Journal:  Case Rep Med       Date:  2010-09-29

6.  Intraoperative ligation of residual haemorrhoids after stapled mucosectomy.

Authors:  P Garg
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 7.  Management options for symptomatic hemorrhoids.

Authors:  Swarna Balasubramaniam; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2003-10

8.  The HubBLe trial: haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) versus rubber band ligation (RBL) for haemorrhoids.

Authors:  Jim Tiernan; Daniel Hind; Angus Watson; Allan J Wailoo; Michael Bradburn; Neil Shephard; Katie Biggs; Steven Brown
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Mid-term results of stapled hemorrhoidopexy for third- and fourth-degree hemorrhoids--correlation with the histological features of the resected tissue.

Authors:  Gil Ohana; Boris Myslovaty; Arie Ariche; Zeev Dreznik; Rumelia Koren; Lea Rath-Wolfson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.282

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.