Office-Based Procedures in the Management of Hemorrhoidal Disease: Rubber Band Ligation versus Sclerotherapy - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Salgueiro,Paulo
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Ramos,Maria Inês, Castro-Poças,Fernando, Libânio,Diogo
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