We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatments: a meta-analysis.
Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal Canadien de Chirurgie 1997 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether any method of hemorrhoid therapy has been shown to be superior in randomized trials.
METHOD: A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials assessing two or more treatment modalities for symptomatic hemorrhoids.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response to therapy, the need for further therapy, complications and pain.
RESULTS: Eighteen trials were available for analysis. Hemorrhoidectomy was found to be significantly more effective than manual dilatation of the anus (p = 0.0017) and associated with less need for further therapy (p = 0.034), no significant difference in complications (p = 0.60) but more pain (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent hemorrhoidectomy had a better response to treatment than did patients who were treated with rubber-band ligation (p = 0.001), although complications were greater (p = 0.02), as was pain (p < 0.0001). Rubber-band ligation was better than sclerotherapy in response to treatment for all hemorrhoids (p = 0.005) and for hemorrhoids stratified by grade (grades 1 and 2, p = 0.007, grade 3, p = 0.042), with no difference in the complication rate (p = 0.35). Patients treated with sclerotherapy (p = 0.031) or infrared coagulation (p = 0.0014) were more likely to require further therapy than those treated with rubber-band ligation, although pain was greater after rubber-band ligation (p = 0.03 for sclerotherapy, p < 0.0001 for infrared coagulation).
CONCLUSIONS: Rubber-band ligation is recommended as the initial mode of therapy for grades 1 to 3 hemorrhoids. Although hemorrhoidectomy showed better response, it is associated with more complications and pain than rubber-band ligation. Thus, it should be reserved for patients whose hemorrhoids fail to respond to rubber-band ligation.
METHOD: A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials assessing two or more treatment modalities for symptomatic hemorrhoids.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response to therapy, the need for further therapy, complications and pain.
RESULTS: Eighteen trials were available for analysis. Hemorrhoidectomy was found to be significantly more effective than manual dilatation of the anus (p = 0.0017) and associated with less need for further therapy (p = 0.034), no significant difference in complications (p = 0.60) but more pain (p < 0.001). Patients who underwent hemorrhoidectomy had a better response to treatment than did patients who were treated with rubber-band ligation (p = 0.001), although complications were greater (p = 0.02), as was pain (p < 0.0001). Rubber-band ligation was better than sclerotherapy in response to treatment for all hemorrhoids (p = 0.005) and for hemorrhoids stratified by grade (grades 1 and 2, p = 0.007, grade 3, p = 0.042), with no difference in the complication rate (p = 0.35). Patients treated with sclerotherapy (p = 0.031) or infrared coagulation (p = 0.0014) were more likely to require further therapy than those treated with rubber-band ligation, although pain was greater after rubber-band ligation (p = 0.03 for sclerotherapy, p < 0.0001 for infrared coagulation).
CONCLUSIONS: Rubber-band ligation is recommended as the initial mode of therapy for grades 1 to 3 hemorrhoids. Although hemorrhoidectomy showed better response, it is associated with more complications and pain than rubber-band ligation. Thus, it should be reserved for patients whose hemorrhoids fail to respond to rubber-band ligation.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app