Awad Atif ElSayed, Soliman Hanan Hamed, Saif Sabry Abdel Latif Abou, Darwish Abdel Monem Nooman, Mosaad Samah, Elfert Asem Ahmed
Tropical Medicine & Infectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Arab J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jun;13(2):77-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ajg.2012.03.008. Epub 2012 Apr 24.
Bleeding internal haemorrhoids are common and used to be treated surgically with too many complications. Endoscopic therapy is trying to take the lead. Sclerotherapy and rubber band ligation are the candidates to replace surgical therapy especially in patients with liver cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) to endoscopic rubber band ligation (EBL) regarding effectiveness and complications in the treatment of bleeding internal haemorrhoids in Egyptian patients with liver cirrhosis.
One hundred and twenty adult patients with liver cirrhosis and bleeding internal haemorrhoids were randomised into two equal groups; the first treated with EBL using Saeed multiband ligator, and the second with EIS using either ethanolamine oleate 5% or N-butyl cyanoacrylate. All groups were matched as regards age, sex, Child score and pre-procedure Doppler values. Patients were followed up clinically and with abdominal ultrasound/Doppler for 6 months. Endoscopic and endosonography/Doppler was done before and one month after the procedure. Pre and post-procedure data were recorded and analysed.
Both techniques were highly effective in the control of bleeding from internal haemorrhoids with a low rebleeding [10% in the EBL group and 13.33% in the EIS group] and recurrence [20% in the EBL group 20% in the EIS group] rates. Child score had a positive correlation with rebleeding and recurrence in EIS group only. Pain score and need for analgesia were significantly higher while patient satisfaction was significantly lower in EIS compared to EBL [p<0.05]. No significant difference between ethanolamine and cyanoacrylate subgroups was found [p>0.05].
Both EBL and EIS were effective in the treatment of bleeding internal haemorrhoids in patients with liver cirrhosis. EBL had significantly less pain and higher patient satisfaction than EIS. EBL was also safer in patients with advanced cirrhosis.
出血性内痔很常见,过去常采用手术治疗,但并发症过多。内镜治疗正试图占据主导地位。硬化疗法和橡皮圈套扎术是替代手术治疗的选择,尤其适用于肝硬化患者。本研究的目的是比较内镜注射硬化疗法(EIS)和内镜橡皮圈套扎术(EBL)在治疗埃及肝硬化患者出血性内痔方面的有效性和并发症。
120例患有肝硬化和出血性内痔的成年患者被随机分为两组,每组人数相等;第一组使用赛义德多带结扎器进行EBL治疗,第二组使用5%油酸乙醇胺或氰基丙烯酸正丁酯进行EIS治疗。所有组在年龄、性别、Child评分和术前多普勒值方面进行匹配。对患者进行为期6个月的临床随访以及腹部超声/多普勒检查。在手术前和手术后1个月进行内镜检查和内镜超声/多普勒检查。记录并分析术前和术后的数据。
两种技术在控制内痔出血方面都非常有效,再出血率低(EBL组为10%,EIS组为13.33%),复发率低(EBL组为20%,EIS组为20%)。仅在EIS组中,Child评分与再出血和复发呈正相关。与EBL相比,EIS组的疼痛评分和镇痛需求显著更高,而患者满意度显著更低(p<0.05)。在乙醇胺和氰基丙烯酸酯亚组之间未发现显著差异(p>0.05)。
EBL和EIS在治疗肝硬化患者出血性内痔方面均有效。EBL的疼痛明显少于EIS,患者满意度更高。对于晚期肝硬化患者,EBL也更安全。