Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000600039 |
Resumo: | Abstract Introduction: The most frequently used office-based procedures in hemorrhoidal disease (HD) are rubber band ligation (RBL) and sclerotherapy. Few studies have been published comparing the various types of instrumental therapy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of sclerotherapy and RBL. Methods: Three online databases were searched. Efficacy (control of symptoms, prolapse, bleeding and pain, patients’ satisfaction, and disease recurrence) and safety (complications, such as pain and bleeding) were the assessed outcomes. Pooled relative risks (RR) were computed for each outcome using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q test and I2. Results: Six RCTs and three cohort studies were included. Control of prolapse and bleeding was significantly higher with RBL (93.1% RBL vs. 66.4% sclerotherapy, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12-1.60 and 89.1% RBL vs. 78.7% SCL, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.34, respectively). Both techniques had similar results in terms of pain relief, overall control of symptoms, and risk of recurrence at 3 months. Although patient satisfaction was significantly higher with RBL (77.8% RBL vs. 46.7% sclerotherapy, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.50), post-procedural pain was significantly higher with this technique (24% RBL vs. 14% sclerotherapy, RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32-2.28). There was no significant difference regarding post-procedure bleeding (11.1% RBL vs. 8.7% sclerotherapy, RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.86-1.94). In the subgroup analysis, according to the HD grade, post-procedure pain was higher with RBL only in HD grade II (vs. HD grade I-III). Conclusions: RBL performs better than sclerotherapy in controlling HD symptoms, specifically prolapse and bleeding, although post-procedural pain is a frequent complication. Recurrence is similar with both procedures. While waiting for the publication of results with sclerotherapy with new sclerosants, RBL remains the office-based treatment of choice in HD. |
id |
RCAP_9976c40a6554489c9b67439cb39ee47c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S2341-45452022000600039 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisHemorrhoidal diseaseRubber band ligationSclerotherapyAbstract Introduction: The most frequently used office-based procedures in hemorrhoidal disease (HD) are rubber band ligation (RBL) and sclerotherapy. Few studies have been published comparing the various types of instrumental therapy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of sclerotherapy and RBL. Methods: Three online databases were searched. Efficacy (control of symptoms, prolapse, bleeding and pain, patients’ satisfaction, and disease recurrence) and safety (complications, such as pain and bleeding) were the assessed outcomes. Pooled relative risks (RR) were computed for each outcome using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q test and I2. Results: Six RCTs and three cohort studies were included. Control of prolapse and bleeding was significantly higher with RBL (93.1% RBL vs. 66.4% sclerotherapy, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12-1.60 and 89.1% RBL vs. 78.7% SCL, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.34, respectively). Both techniques had similar results in terms of pain relief, overall control of symptoms, and risk of recurrence at 3 months. Although patient satisfaction was significantly higher with RBL (77.8% RBL vs. 46.7% sclerotherapy, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.50), post-procedural pain was significantly higher with this technique (24% RBL vs. 14% sclerotherapy, RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32-2.28). There was no significant difference regarding post-procedure bleeding (11.1% RBL vs. 8.7% sclerotherapy, RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.86-1.94). In the subgroup analysis, according to the HD grade, post-procedure pain was higher with RBL only in HD grade II (vs. HD grade I-III). Conclusions: RBL performs better than sclerotherapy in controlling HD symptoms, specifically prolapse and bleeding, although post-procedural pain is a frequent complication. Recurrence is similar with both procedures. While waiting for the publication of results with sclerotherapy with new sclerosants, RBL remains the office-based treatment of choice in HD.Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2022-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000600039GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.29 n.6 2022reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000600039Salgueiro,PauloRamos,Maria InêsCastro-Poças,FernandoLibânio,Diogoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:34:21Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452022000600039Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:36:19.777989Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
spellingShingle |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Salgueiro,Paulo Hemorrhoidal disease Rubber band ligation Sclerotherapy |
title_short |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort |
Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
author |
Salgueiro,Paulo |
author_facet |
Salgueiro,Paulo Ramos,Maria Inês Castro-Poças,Fernando Libânio,Diogo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ramos,Maria Inês Castro-Poças,Fernando Libânio,Diogo |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Salgueiro,Paulo Ramos,Maria Inês Castro-Poças,Fernando Libânio,Diogo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Hemorrhoidal disease Rubber band ligation Sclerotherapy |
topic |
Hemorrhoidal disease Rubber band ligation Sclerotherapy |
description |
Abstract Introduction: The most frequently used office-based procedures in hemorrhoidal disease (HD) are rubber band ligation (RBL) and sclerotherapy. Few studies have been published comparing the various types of instrumental therapy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of sclerotherapy and RBL. Methods: Three online databases were searched. Efficacy (control of symptoms, prolapse, bleeding and pain, patients’ satisfaction, and disease recurrence) and safety (complications, such as pain and bleeding) were the assessed outcomes. Pooled relative risks (RR) were computed for each outcome using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q test and I2. Results: Six RCTs and three cohort studies were included. Control of prolapse and bleeding was significantly higher with RBL (93.1% RBL vs. 66.4% sclerotherapy, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.12-1.60 and 89.1% RBL vs. 78.7% SCL, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.34, respectively). Both techniques had similar results in terms of pain relief, overall control of symptoms, and risk of recurrence at 3 months. Although patient satisfaction was significantly higher with RBL (77.8% RBL vs. 46.7% sclerotherapy, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01-2.50), post-procedural pain was significantly higher with this technique (24% RBL vs. 14% sclerotherapy, RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32-2.28). There was no significant difference regarding post-procedure bleeding (11.1% RBL vs. 8.7% sclerotherapy, RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.86-1.94). In the subgroup analysis, according to the HD grade, post-procedure pain was higher with RBL only in HD grade II (vs. HD grade I-III). Conclusions: RBL performs better than sclerotherapy in controlling HD symptoms, specifically prolapse and bleeding, although post-procedural pain is a frequent complication. Recurrence is similar with both procedures. While waiting for the publication of results with sclerotherapy with new sclerosants, RBL remains the office-based treatment of choice in HD. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-12-01 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000600039 |
url |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000600039 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452022000600039 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.29 n.6 2022 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1817554476677988352 |