Endoscopic rubber band ligation and injection therapy for grade I - III internal hemorrhoids: analysis of clinical efficacy and safety
10.3760/cma.j.cn441530-20250328-00128
- VernacularTitle:内镜下套扎与注射术治疗Ⅰ~Ⅲ度内痔的临床疗效及安全性比较
- Author:
Sen LIAO
1
;
Jiawei ZHANG
;
Juan LI
;
Yongcheng CHEN
;
Xuefeng GUO
Author Information
1. 中山大学附属第六医院普通外科（内镜外科），广州 510655
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Internal hemorrhoids;
Endoscopic rubber band ligation;
Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy;
Clinical efficacy;
Safety profile
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2025;28(12):1434-1440
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic rubber band ligation (ERBL) and endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) in the treatment of grade I-III internal hemorrhoids, to provide a basis for the individualized treatment of patients with internal hemorrhoids in clinical practice.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 613 patients with grade I to III internal hemorrhoids who underwent ERBL or EIS at The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from December 2019 to November 2023 were retrospectively collected. Inclusion criteria: (1) Patients diagnosed with symptomatic grade I-III internal hemorrhoids who failed conservative treatments such as diet adjustment and medication; (2) Patients who were unable or unwilling to receive surgical treatment due to multiple underlying systemic diseases. Exclusion criteria: (1) Patients with grade I-III internal hemorrhoids complicated with incarceration, thrombosis or other complications; (2) Patients with a history of hemorrhoid surgery; (3) Patients complicated with perianal abscess, anal fistula, active proctitis, rectal tumor, polyp, radiation proctitis or inflammatory bowel disease; (4) Patients with incomplete clinical data or lost to follow-up. This study was divided into the ERBL group and the EIS group based on different treatment. Baseline characteristics, postoperative effective rate, recurrence rate, pain score, anal distension, anal edema, complication rate, and treatment satisfaction were compared between the two groups.Results:After balancing with propensity score matching (PSM), a total of 313 patients were included, including 200 in the ERBL group and 113 in the EIS group. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, such as gender, age, body mass index, Goligher classification, and laboratory test indicators, between the two groups (all P > 0.05), indicating that the two groups were comparable. The cure rates of the ERBL group and the EIS group were 64.0% (128/200) and 62.8% (71/113), respectively. The marked effective rates were 31.5% (63/200) and 34.5% (39/113), and the ineffective rates were 4.5% (9/200) and 2.7% (3/113), respectively. Statistical analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the two groups within 3 months after the operation (χ2=0.858, P=0.651). The recurrence rate of the ERBL group was lower than that of the EIS group [13.1% (25/191) vs. 18.2% (20/110)], but the difference was not statistically significant (χ2=1.424, P=0.233). Subgroup analysis showed that the recurrence rates of ERBL and EIS were similar in grade I-II internal hemorrhoids [10.3% (15/146) vs. 10.5% (9/86), χ2=0.002, P=0.963]; in grade III internal hemorrhoids, the recurrence rate of the ERBL group was lower than that of the EIS group [22.2% (10/45) vs. 45.8% (11/24), χ2=4.121, P=0.042]. Still, the difference was not statistically significant after Bonferroni correction (χ2=4.121, corrected P>0.025). Compared with the ERBL group, the EIS group had a lower pain score on the first day after operation [0 (0, 0) vs. 1 (0, 3), Z=-8.211, P<0.001] and a lower incidence of anal distension [25.7% (29/113) vs. 61.5% (123/200), χ2=37.122, P<0.001], with statistically significant differences. The total incidence of complications in the ERBL group was significantly higher than that in the EIS group [29.5% (59/200) vs. 4.4% (5/113), χ2=27.910, P<0.001], mainly reflected in postoperative bleeding [18.0% (36/200) vs. 3.5% (4/113), χ2=13.544, P<0.001] and urinary retention [8.5% (17/200) vs. 0, χ2=10.157, P=0.001], with statistically significant differences. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative satisfaction, health status score, and the proportion of returning to everyday life within 1 month between the two groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:Both ERBL and EIS are effective minimally invasive therapies for grade I-III internal hemorrhoids. EIS is preferred for grade I and II internal hemorrhoids to reduce complications, while ERBL shows a trend in reducing the recurrence rate of grade III internal hemorrhoids. Clinical decisions should be made comprehensively based on the classification, patient tolerance, and prognosis.
