scholarly journals Comparative assessment of efficacy of artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for management of haemorrhoids in Southern Rajasthan

Author(s):  
Mathura Prasad Agrawal ◽  
Anurag Pateriya ◽  
Surendra Kumar Samar

Background: One of the commonest complaints presenting in the surgical out patient department (OPD) is haemorrhoids. Commonest types of haemorrhoids are grade II and III. There is a wide number of modalities that can be adopted for their management. It depends on the skill of the surgeon and preferences of the patient. The present study was designed to ascertain if two modalities of artery ligation and band ligation are comparatively equal or not in managing symptomatic grade II and III haemorrhoids in Rajasthan.Methods: The study comprised of 100 subjects who were randomly divided in two groups based on the procedure to be followed. The subjects were told about the study and its objective.Results: The observations reported that among the selected study population there were more relapses in band ligation as compared to artery ligation.Conclusions: This led to the conclusion that despite its painful and traumatic methodology, haemorrhoid artery ligation still provides a better outcome.

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abualbishr Alshreef ◽  
Allan J. Wailoo ◽  
Steven R. Brown ◽  
James P. Tiernan ◽  
Angus J. M. Watson ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Tiernan ◽  
Daniel Hind ◽  
Angus Watson ◽  
Allan J Wailoo ◽  
Michael Bradburn ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
L. Dekker ◽  
I. J. M. Han-Geurts ◽  
H. D. Rørvik ◽  
S. van Dieren ◽  
W. A. Bemelman

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to review clinical outcome of haemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation in grade II–III haemorrhoids. Methods A systematic review was conducted. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the WHO International Trial Registry Platform were searched, from inception until May 2018, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing rubber band ligation with haemorrhoidectomy for grade II–III haemorrhoids. The primary outcome was control of symptoms. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, postoperative complications, anal continence, patient satisfaction, quality of life and healthcare costs were assessed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results Three hundred and twenty-four studies were identified. Eight trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials were of moderate methodological quality. Outcome measures were diverse and not clearly defined. Control of symptoms was better following haemorrhoidectomy. Patients had less pain after rubber band ligation. There were more complications (bleeding, urinary retention, anal incontinence/stenosis) in the haemorrhoidectomy group. Patient satisfaction was equal in both groups. There were no data on quality of life and healthcare costs except that in one study patients resumed work more early after rubber band ligation. Conclusions Haemorrhoidectomy seems to provide better symptom control but at the cost of more pain and complications. However, due to the poor quality of the studies analysed/it is not possible to determine which of the two procedures provides the best treatment for grade II–III haemorrhoids. Further studies focusing on clearly defined outcome measurements taking patients perspective and economic impact into consideration are required.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (88) ◽  
pp. 1-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Brown ◽  
Jim Tiernan ◽  
Katie Biggs ◽  
Daniel Hind ◽  
Neil Shephard ◽  
...  

BackgroundOptimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious.ObjectiveThe comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids.DesignA multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.PerspectiveUK NHS and Personal Social Services.Setting17 NHS Trusts.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL.InterventionsHAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL.OutcomesPrimary outcome – recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes – recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51;p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15;p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY.ConclusionsAt 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY.LimitationsBlinding of participants and site staff was not possible.Future workThe incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A,et al.Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Lancet2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document