• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

III度有症状痔患者橡皮圈套扎术与痔切除术的比较:一项多中心、开放标签、随机对照非劣效性试验

Comparison of Rubber Band Ligation and Hemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Hemorrhoids Grade III: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

作者信息

van Oostendorp Justin Y, Dekker Lisette, van Dieren Susan, Veldkamp Ruben, Bemelman Willem A, Han-Geurts Ingrid J M

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Proctos Kliniek, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Dis Colon Rectum. 2025 May 1;68(5):572-583. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003679. Epub 2025 Feb 14.

DOI:10.1097/DCR.0000000000003679
PMID:39952268
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11999089/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The optimal management strategy for grade III hemorrhoids remains a subject of ongoing debate. Hemorrhoidectomy is the criterion standard, but rubber band ligation offers a less invasive outpatient alternative. Treatment variability persists due to a lack of consensus on the preferred strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To directly compare the effectiveness of rubber band ligation and hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of grade III hemorrhoids.

DESIGN

Open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

SETTINGS

Multicenter study across 10 Dutch hospitals from October 2019 to September 2022.

PATIENTS

Patients (aged 18 years or older) with symptomatic grade III (Goligher) hemorrhoids were included in this study. Exclusion criteria included prior rectal/anal surgery, more than 1 rubber band ligation/injection within the preceding 3 years, rectal radiation, preexisting sphincter injury, IBD, medical unfitness for surgery (ASA higher than 3), pregnancy, or hypercoagulability disorders.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomized 1:1 to rubber band ligation or hemorrhoidectomy, with up to 2 banding sessions allowed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes included 12-month health-related quality of life and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included complications, pain, work resumption, and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients were randomly assigned (47 rubber band ligation vs 40 hemorrhoidectomy). Rubber band ligation was not noninferior to hemorrhoidectomy in quality-adjusted life years (-0.045; 95% CI, -0.087 to -0.004). Recurrence rate was worse in the rubber band ligation group (47.5% vs 6.1%), with an absolute risk difference of 41% (95% CI, 24%-59%). Complication rates were comparable. Pain scores after hemorrhoidectomy were higher during the first week (visual analogue scale 4 vs 1; p = 0.002). Rubber band ligation group returned to work sooner (1 vs 9 days; p = 0.021). Patient-reported hemorrhoidal symptom scores favored hemorrhoidectomy.

LIMITATIONS

The primary limitation of the study was its early termination due to funding constraints, resulting in a relatively small sample size and limited statistical power. Patient recruitment was hindered by significant treatment preferences and the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemorrhoidectomy may benefit patients with grade III hemorrhoids in terms of quality of life, recurrence risk, and symptom burden, whereas rubber band ligation allows faster recovery with less pain. These findings can guide clinical decision-making. See Video Abstract .

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04621695.

COMPARACIN DE LA LIGADURA CON BANDA ELSTICA Y LA HEMORROIDECTOMA EN PACIENTES CON HEMORROIDES SINTOMTICAS GRADO III ENSAYO MULTICNTRICO, ABIERTO, ALEATORIZADO, CONTROLADO Y DE NO INFERIORIDAD: ANTECEDENTES:La estrategia óptima de tratamiento para las hemorroides grado III sigue siendo un tema de debate continuo. La hemorroidectomía es el estándar de oro, pero la ligadura con banda elástica ofrece una alternativa ambulatoria menos invasiva. La variabilidad del tratamiento persiste debido a la falta de consenso sobre la estrategia preferida.OBJETIVO:Comparar directamente la eficacia de la ligadura con banda elástica y la hemorroidectomía en el tratamiento de las hemorroides grado III.DISEÑO:Ensayo de no inferioridad, controlado, aleatorizado, de grupos paralelos y abierto.ENTORNO CLINICO:Estudio multicéntrico en 10 hospitales holandeses desde octubre de 2019 hasta septiembre de 2022.PACIENTES:Pacientes (≥18 años) con hemorroides sintomáticas grado III (Goligher). Exclusiones: cirugía rectal/anal previa, >1 ligadura con banda elástica/inyección en los tres años anteriores, radiación rectal, lesión preexistente del esfínter, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, incapacidad médica para la cirugía (ASA >3), embarazo o trastornos de hipercoagulabilidad.INTERVENCIONES:Aleatorización 1:1 para ligadura con banda elástica o hemorroidectomía, con hasta dos sesiones de ligadura permitidas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Primarias: calidad de vida relacionada con la salud a los 12 meses y tasa de recurrencia. Secundarias: complicaciones, dolor, reanudación del trabajo y medidas de resultados informadas por el paciente.RESULTADOS:Se aleatorizaron ochenta y siete pacientes (47 ligadura con banda elástica frente a 40 hemorroidectomía). La ligadura con banda elástica no fue no inferior a la hemorroidectomía en años de vida ajustados por calidad (-0,045, intervalo de confianza del 95 %: -0,087 a -0,004). La tasa de recurrencia fue peor en el grupo de ligadura con banda elástica (47,5 % frente a 6,1 %), con una diferencia de riesgo absoluto del 41 % (intervalo de confianza del 95 %: 24 %-59 %). Las tasas de complicaciones fueron comparables. Las puntuaciones de dolor posthemorroidectomía fueron más altas durante la primera semana (escala analógica visual 4 frente a 1; p = 0,002). El grupo de ligadura con banda elástica volvió al trabajo antes (1 frente a 9 días; p = 0,021). Las puntuaciones de síntomas hemorroidales notificadas por los pacientes favorecieron a la hemorroidectomía.LIMITACIONES:La principal limitación del estudio fue su finalización temprana debido a las limitaciones de financiación, lo que dio lugar a un tamaño de muestra relativamente pequeño y a un poder estadístico limitado. El reclutamiento de pacientes se vio obstaculizado por las preferencias significativas de tratamiento y la pandemia de COVID-19.CONCLUSIONES:La hemorroidectomía puede beneficiar a los pacientes con hemorroides de grado III en términos de calidad de vida, riesgo de recurrencia y carga de síntomas, mientras que la ligadura con banda elástica permite una recuperación más rápida con menos dolor. Estos hallazgos pueden orientar la toma de decisiones clínicas. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon )NÚMERO DE REGISTRO DEL ENSAYO CLÍNICO:NCT04621695.

摘要

背景

III度痔疮的最佳管理策略仍是一个持续争论的话题。痔切除术是标准治疗方法,但橡皮圈套扎术提供了一种侵入性较小的门诊替代方案。由于缺乏对首选策略的共识,治疗的变异性仍然存在。

目的

直接比较橡皮圈套扎术和痔切除术治疗III度痔疮的有效性。

设计

开放标签、平行组、随机对照非劣效性试验。

设置

2019年10月至2022年9月在荷兰10家医院进行的多中心研究。

患者

纳入有症状的III度(Goligher)痔疮患者(年龄18岁及以上)。排除标准包括既往直肠/肛门手术、前3年内超过1次橡皮圈套扎/注射、直肠放疗、既往括约肌损伤、炎症性肠病、手术医学上不适合(ASA高于3)、妊娠或高凝性疾病。

干预措施

随机1:1分配至橡皮圈套扎术或痔切除术,允许进行多达2次套扎。

主要结局指标

主要结局包括12个月的健康相关生活质量和复发率。次要结局包括并发症、疼痛、恢复工作情况和患者报告的结局指标。

结果

87例患者被随机分配(47例接受橡皮圈套扎术,40例接受痔切除术)。橡皮圈套扎术在质量调整生命年方面不劣于痔切除术(-0.045;95%CI,-0.087至-0.004)。橡皮圈套扎术组的复发率更高(47.5%对6.1%),绝对风险差异为41%(95%CI,24%-59%)。并发症发生率相当。痔切除术后第一周的疼痛评分更高(视觉模拟量表4对1;p=0.002)。橡皮圈套扎术组恢复工作更快(1天对9天;p=0.021)。患者报告的痔疮症状评分有利于痔切除术。

局限性

该研究的主要局限性是由于资金限制提前终止,导致样本量相对较小且统计效力有限。患者招募受到显著的治疗偏好和COVID-19大流行的阻碍。

结论

痔切除术在生活质量、复发风险和症状负担方面可能使III度痔疮患者受益,而橡皮圈套扎术可使恢复更快且疼痛更少。这些发现可指导临床决策。见视频摘要。

临床试验注册号

NCT04621695。

III度症状性痔疮患者橡皮圈套扎术与痔切除术的比较:多中心、开放、随机、对照、非劣效性试验

背景

III度痔疮的最佳治疗策略仍是一个持续争论的话题。痔切除术是标准治疗方法,但橡皮圈套扎术提供了一种侵入性较小的门诊替代方案。由于缺乏对首选策略的共识,治疗的变异性仍然存在。

目的

直接比较橡皮圈套扎术和痔切除术治疗III度痔疮的有效性。

设计

非劣效性、对照、随机、平行组、开放试验。

临床环境

2019年10月至2022年9月在10家荷兰医院进行的多中心研究。

患者

有症状的III度(Goligher)痔疮患者(≥18岁)。排除标准:既往直肠/肛门手术、前三年>1次橡皮圈套扎/注射、直肠放疗、既往括约肌损伤、炎症性肠病、手术医学上不适合(ASA>3)、妊娠或高凝性疾病。

干预措施

随机1:1分配至橡皮圈套扎术或痔切除术,允许进行多达2次套扎。

主要结局指标

主要指标:12个月的健康相关生活质量和复发率。次要指标:并发症、疼痛、恢复工作情况和患者报告的结局指标。

结果

87例患者被随机分配(47例接受橡皮圈套扎术,40例接受痔切除术)。橡皮圈套扎术在质量调整生命年方面不劣于痔切除术(-0.045,95%CI:-0.087至-0.004)。橡皮圈套扎术组的复发率更高(47.5%对6.1%),绝对风险差异为41%(95%CI,24%-59%)。并发症发生率相当。痔切除术后第一周的疼痛评分更高(视觉模拟量表4对1;p=0.002)。橡皮圈套扎术组恢复工作更快(1天对9天;p=0.021)。患者报告的痔疮症状评分有利于痔切除术。

局限性

该研究的主要局限性是由于资金限制提前终止,导致样本量相对较小且统计效力有限。患者招募受到显著的治疗偏好和COVID-19大流行的阻碍。

结论

痔切除术在生活质量、复发风险和症状负担方面可能使III度痔疮患者受益,而橡皮圈套扎术可使恢复更快且疼痛更少。这些发现可指导临床决策。(翻译 - 弗朗西斯科·M·阿瓦尔卡 - 伦登博士)

临床试验注册号

NCT04621695。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d18/11999089/907e21a50e81/dcr-68-0572-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d18/11999089/525584346ac1/dcr-68-0572-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d18/11999089/907e21a50e81/dcr-68-0572-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d18/11999089/525584346ac1/dcr-68-0572-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d18/11999089/907e21a50e81/dcr-68-0572-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of Rubber Band Ligation and Hemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Hemorrhoids Grade III: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.III度有症状痔患者橡皮圈套扎术与痔切除术的比较:一项多中心、开放标签、随机对照非劣效性试验
Dis Colon Rectum. 2025 May 1;68(5):572-583. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003679. Epub 2025 Feb 14.
2
Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: Long-term Outcomes From the THDLIGA Randomized Controlled Trial.经肛痔动脉结扎固定术联合黏膜套扎术与吻合器痔上黏膜环切术治疗 III 至 IV 度痔的长期疗效:THDLIGA 随机对照试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2023 Aug 1;66(8):e818-e825. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002272. Epub 2022 Mar 1.
3
Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy Plus Ligation Anopexy With Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy for Managing Grade III and IV Hemorrhoidal Disease.比较吻合器痔上黏膜环切钉合术加胶圈套扎术与吻合器痔上黏膜环切钉合术治疗Ⅲ度和Ⅳ度痔病的随机对照试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2024 Jun 1;67(6):812-819. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003273. Epub 2024 Feb 21.
4
Polidocanol Foam Sclerotherapy Versus Rubber Band Ligation in Hemorrhoidal Disease Grades I/II/III: Randomized Trial.聚多卡醇泡沫硬化疗法与橡皮圈结扎治疗 I/II/III 度痔病的随机试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2022 Jul 1;65(7):e718-e727. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002117. Epub 2022 Nov 22.
5
Minimal Open Hemorrhoidectomy Versus Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization: The Effect on Symptoms: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.微创外剥内扎术与经肛痔动脉结扎术治疗痔病的疗效比较:症状改善情况的观察:一项开放标签随机对照临床试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2020 May;63(5):655-667. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001588.
6
Efficacy of Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction in the Posthemorrhoidectomy Period Trial: Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.在痔切除术后时期试验中微粉化纯化黄酮类混合物的疗效:开放标签随机对照试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2024 Jun 1;67(6):826-833. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003211. Epub 2024 Feb 21.
7
Topical Lidocaine or Lidocaine/Diltiazem Ointment Following Rubber Band Ligation of Hemorrhoids: A Prospective 3-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial.痔疮橡皮圈结扎术后局部应用利多卡因或利多卡因/地尔硫䓬软膏:一项前瞻性三臂随机对照试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2023 Aug 1;66(8):1110-1117. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002774. Epub 2023 Mar 17.
8
Excisional Hemorrhoidectomy Versus Dearterialization With Mucopexy for the Treatment of Grade III Hemorrhoidal Disease: The EMODART3 Multicenter Study.切除痔核术与黏膜固定术治疗 III 度痔病的对比:EMODART3 多中心研究。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2023 Dec 1;66(12):e1254-e1263. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002885. Epub 2023 Aug 24.
9
Hemorrhoidectomy: Does Age Make a Difference?痔切除术:年龄有影响吗?
Dis Colon Rectum. 2024 Jun 1;67(6):820-825. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003085. Epub 2024 Feb 23.
10
Infiltration of Bupivacaine and Triamcinolone in Surgical Wounds of Milligan-Morgan Hemorrhoidectomy for Postoperative Pain Control: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.在痔切除术(Milligan-Morgan 术)的手术伤口中浸润布比卡因和曲安奈德以控制术后疼痛:一项双盲随机对照试验。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2022 Aug 1;65(8):1034-1041. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002250. Epub 2022 Jul 5.

引用本文的文献

1
[Hemorrhoidal disease and stage-dependent treatment (including anal prolapse)].痔病与分期依赖性治疗(包括肛门脱垂)
Chirurgie (Heidelb). 2025 Jun 30. doi: 10.1007/s00104-025-02335-7.
2
Cost-Effectiveness of Rubber Band Ligation Versus Hemorrhoidectomy for the Treatment of Grade III Hemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence From the HOLLAND Randomized Controlled Trial.橡胶圈套扎术与痔切除术治疗Ⅲ度痔疮的成本效益:基于荷兰随机对照试验证据的分析
Dis Colon Rectum. 2025 Sep 1;68(9):1100-1111. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003832. Epub 2025 Jun 10.

本文引用的文献

1
Responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure-Haemorrhoidal Impact and Satisfaction Score in patients with haemorrhoidal disease.患者报告结局测量-痔病患者的肛门出血影响和满意度评分的反应性。
Colorectal Dis. 2023 Sep;25(9):1832-1838. doi: 10.1111/codi.16668. Epub 2023 Jul 20.
2
Alternative Randomized Trial Designs in Surgery: A Systematic Review.手术中的替代随机试验设计:系统评价。
Ann Surg. 2022 Nov 1;276(5):753-760. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005620. Epub 2022 Jul 22.
3
Patient reported outcome measure-haemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (PROM-HISS): Development, reliability and construct validity.
患者报告结局测量-痔影响和满意度评分(PROM-HISS):开发、信度和结构效度。
Colorectal Dis. 2022 Aug;24(8):992-999. doi: 10.1111/codi.16079. Epub 2022 Feb 23.
4
Rubber band ligation versus haemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.橡皮圈套扎术与痔切除术治疗Ⅱ-Ⅲ度痔疮的疗效比较:随机对照试验的系统评价与荟萃分析
Tech Coloproctol. 2021 Jun;25(6):663-674. doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02430-x. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
5
How is your proctology patient really doing? Outcome measurement in proctology: development, design and validation study of the Proctoprom.你的肛肠病患者情况如何?肛肠病学的结局测量:Proctoprom 的开发、设计和验证研究。
Tech Coloproctol. 2020 Apr;24(4):291-300. doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02156-2. Epub 2020 Feb 28.
6
European Society of ColoProctology: guideline for haemorrhoidal disease.欧洲肛肠外科学会:痔病指南。
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Jun;22(6):650-662. doi: 10.1111/codi.14975. Epub 2020 Feb 17.
7
Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses.部分随机化患者偏好试验作为随机对照试验的替代设计:系统评价与荟萃分析
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 16;9(10):e031151. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031151.
8
A validated severity score for haemorrhoids as an essential prerequisite for future haemorrhoid trials.痔严重程度评分的验证作为未来痔临床试验的基本前提。
Tech Coloproctol. 2019 Jan;23(1):33-41. doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01936-9. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
9
European Society of Coloproctology Core Outcome Set for haemorrhoidal disease: an international Delphi study among healthcare professionals.欧洲肛肠病学会痔病核心结局集:一项针对医疗保健专业人员的国际 Delphi 研究。
Colorectal Dis. 2019 May;21(5):570-580. doi: 10.1111/codi.14553. Epub 2019 Feb 8.
10
Surgical management of haemorrhoids: an Italian survey of over 32 000 patients over 17 years.痔疮的手术治疗:意大利超过 17 年的超过 32000 例患者的调查。
Colorectal Dis. 2018 Dec;20(12):1117-1124. doi: 10.1111/codi.14339. Epub 2018 Aug 16.