Rubber band ligation versus excisional haemorrhoidectomy for haemorrhoids

Shanmugam V, Campbell KL, Loudon MA, Rabindranath KS, Steele RJC, Thaha MA

Bookmark this:

more ...

Email this page

Summary

This review compares the safety and effectiveness of two of the most popular treatments for haemorrhoids, rubber band ligation (RBL) and excisional haemorrhoidectomy (EH).

When conservative treatments like change of diet or ointments do not help, people usually see a doctor for haemorrhoid removal. RBL involves placing rubber bands around haemorrhoids until they eventually fall off. There are other nonsurgical treatments for haemorrhoids but RBL is often considered the best. For more severe haemorrhoids surgical removal of the haemorrhoids (EH) may be necessary. Although it is very effective, it is more painful and invasive.
This review is based upon three randomised controlled trials comparing RBL with EH, with a total of 216 patients. The trials showed that with EH, haemorrhoids did not come back as often as with RBL. EH was better for advanced haemorrhoids, known as grade III haemorrhoids. For less severe grade II haemorrhoids, RBL and EH were equally effective. EH caused more pain after the procedure, more minor complications, and required more time off work. Patient satisfaction was similar for both treatments.
The review authors conclude that RBL should be the primary treatment used for grade II haemorrhoids, and EH reserved for patients who failed after repeated RBL or grade III haemorrhoids. They recommend more research be done comparing these techniques with the many newer ones, especially stapled haemorrhoidopexy, to determine which treatment is best.

This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This record should be cited as: Shanmugam V, Campbell KL, Loudon MA, Rabindranath KS, Steele RJC, Thaha MA. Rubber band ligation versus excisional haemorrhoidectomy for haemorrhoids. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD005034. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005034.pub2.

This version first published online: July 20. 2005

Abstract

Background

Traditional treatment methods for haemorrhoids fall into two broad groups: less invasive techniques including rubber band ligation (RBL), which tend to produce minimal pain, and the more radical techniques like excisional haemorrhoidectomy (EH), which are inherently more painful. For decades, innovations in the field of haemorrhoidal treatment have centred on modifying the traditional methods to achieve a minimally invasive, less painful procedure and yet with a more sustainable result. The availability of newer techniques has reopened debate on the roles of traditional treatment options for haemorrhoids.

Objectives

To review the efficacy and safety of the two most popular conventional methods of haemorrhoidal treatment, rubber band ligation and excisional haemorrhoidectomy.

Search strategy

We searched all the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL).

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials comparing rubber band ligation with excisional haemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic haemorrhoids in adult human patients were included.

Data collection and analysis

We extracted data on to previously designed data extraction sheet. Dichtomous data were presented as relative risk and 95% confidence intervals, and continuous outcomes as weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals.

Main results

Three trials (of poor methodological quality) met the inclusion criteria. Complete remission of haemorrhoidal symptom was better with EH (three studies, 202 patients, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.83). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 90.5%; P = 0.0001). Similar analysis based on the grading of haemorrhoids revealed the superiority of EH over RBL for grade III haemorrhoids (prolapse that needs manual reduction) (two trials, 116 patients, RR 1.23, CI 1.04 to 1.45; P = 0.01). However, no significant difference was noticed in grade II haemorrhoids (prolapse that reduces spontaneously on cessation of straining) (one trial, 32 patients, RR 1.07, CI 0.94 to 1.21; P = 0.32) Fewer patients required re-treatment after EH (three trials, RR 0.20 CI 0.09 to 0.40; P < 0.00001). Patients undergoing EH were at significantly higher risk of postoperative pain (three trials, fixed effect; 212 patients, RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.33, P < 0.00001). The overall delayed complication rate showed significant difference (P = 0.03) (three trials, 204 patients, RR 6.32, CI 1.15 to 34.89) between the two interventions.

Authors' conclusions

The present systematic review confirms the long-term efficacy of EH, at least for grade III haemorrhoids, compared to the less invasive technique of RBL but at the expense of increased pain, higher complications and more time off work. However, despite these disadvantages of EH, patient satisfaction and patient's acceptance of the treatment modalities seems to be similar following both the techniques implying patient's preference for complete long-term cure of symptoms and possibly less concern for minor complications. So, RBL can be adopted as the choice of treatment for grade II haemorrhoids with similar results but with out the side effects of EH while reserving EH for grade III haemorrhoids or recurrence after RBL. More robust study is required to make definitive conclusions.

top of page | contact us | about this site | disclaimer | privacy