| Literature DB >> 36127948 |
Jignesh Ashwin Gandhi1, Pravin Hanumant Shinde2, Amay Banker2, Sadashiv N Chaudhari2.
Abstract
Introduction: The ideal approach to the management of haemorrhoidal disease (HD) remains to be elucidated. A procedure that returns the anal cushions to their normal size without destroying them or damaging the surrounding tissues is sought. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) overcomes many of the disadvantages of the previously described repairs and may be a valuable alternative in the management of advanced HD. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of the Rafaelo® technique for treatment of HD. Material and methods: A retrospective observational study was carried out between June 2019 and October 2020. The haemorrhoidal severity score (HSS), the Cleveland Incontinence Score (CIS), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain were compared prior to and post procedure using a paired t-test.Entities:
Keywords: Haemorrhoidal Severity Score; Rafaelo®; haemorrhoids; radiofrequency ablation
Year: 2021 PMID: 36127948 PMCID: PMC9475478 DOI: 10.5114/pg.2021.110011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prz Gastroenterol ISSN: 1895-5770
Figure 1Injection of local anaesthetic into the ischiorectal fat immediately peripheral to the external sphincter
Figure 2A fluid barrier is created by injecting 3 ml of normal saline (NS) between the submucosa of haemorrhoidal tissue and internal anal sphincter muscle
Figure 3The tip of the RFA probe is inserted into the haemorrhoidal tissue proximal to dental line, to a depth of about 5 mm, and the tissue was gently lifted up before delivering the radiofrequency current
Figure 4The RF application is continued until the haemorrhoidal tissue exhibits whitish discoloration
Figure 5Comparison of the haemorrhoid at 2 months following radiofrequency ablation
Patient demographics (n = 47)
| Parameter | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Age [years] | 43 (9.3) | |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 22.5 (3.2) | |
| Sex: | ||
| Male | 38 (80%) | |
| Female | 9 (20%) | |
| ASA Score: | ||
| I | 32 (68%) | |
| II | 15 (32%) | |
| Haemorrhoidal grade: | ||
| II | 20 (42.5%) | |
| III | 17 (36%) | |
| IV | 10 (21.5%) | |
| Prior treatment: | ||
| Conservative | 47 (100%) | |
| Rubber band ligation | 9 (20%) | |
| Visual Analogue Score: | ||
| Day 3 | 3 (1.8) | |
| Day 7 | 1 (0.8) | |
| Cleveland Incontinence Score: | ||
| Before | 0.2 (1.1) | |
| 2 months follow-up | 0 | |
| Lost to follow-up | 2 (4.3%) | |
Continuous variables are listed as mean (standard deviation), and categorical variables are listed as count (percentage). BMI – body mass index.
Haemorrhoid Severity Score (HSS)
| Symptom | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pain | 0.9 (0.7) | 0.3 (0.5) | < 0.05 |
| Itching | 2.0 (0.7) | 0.5 (0.7) | < 0.05 |
| Bleeding | 2.2 (0.6) | 0.2 (0.5) | < 0.05 |
| Soiling | 0.5 (0.6) | 0 | < 0.05 |
| Haemorrhoidal prolapse | 1.2(1.1) | 0.1 (0.3) | < 0.05 |
| HSS Total | 8.3 (2) | 1.1 (1) | < 0.05 |
For each symptom, minimum score was 0 (never) and maximum score was 3 (always). The total score for the HSS questionnaire is 15. Values are described as mean (standard deviation).
Figure 6Mean values of Haemorrhoidal Severity Score before and 2 months after radiofrequency ablation
Complications (n = 47)
| Complications | Value |
|---|---|
| Minor bleeding | 6 (12%) |
| Major bleeding | 3 (6%) |
| Pain | 5 (10%) |
| Urinary retention | 3 (6%) |
| Infection | 0 |
| Anal stenosis | 0 |
| Recurrence | 3 (6%) |
Categorical variables are listed as count (percentage).