| Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy（CAES）and Ruiyun Procedure for Hemorrhoids（RPH）in the treatment of grade Ⅰ to Ⅲ internal hemorrhoids,to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of the two,and to provide more options for the treatment of internal hemorrhoids ’s reference.Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,patients with grade I to III internal hemorrhoids who were treated with CAES and RPH in Enshi Central Hospital,Hubei Province from August 2019 to January 2021 were randomly selected,including 50 patients in CAES group and 50 patients in RPH group.The operation time,intraoperative blood loss,24-hour postoperative pain score,postoperative complications（bleeding,infection,swelling and pain of the anal,and anal stenosis）,length of hospital stay,hospitalization costs,and the patient satisfaction were retrospectively analyzed between the two groups,and the Clinical efficacy（cure,effective,ineffective）were evaluaed.Results The statistical results of the relevant data in this study showed that the operation time of the CAES group was（15.20±6.39）minutes shorter than that of the RPH group（27.90±9.40）minutes,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）.The intraoperative blood loss in the CAES group The volume（8.26±2.33）ml was less than that in RPH group（13.18±3.32）ml,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）.The24-hour pain score after operation in the CAES group（1.86±0.61）was lower than that in the RPH group（3.32±0.51）,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）.Comparison of complications（bleeding,infection,anal swelling and pain and anal stenosis）between CAES and RPH one week after surgery: 6 patients（12.00%）in CAES group had complications,which was lower than 32 patients（64.00%）in RPH group,the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）;there were 3 cases（6.00%）of bleeding in CAES group,which was lower than 23 cases（46.00%）in RPH group,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）;there was 1 case（2.00%）of infection in CAES group and 3 cases of infection（6.00%）in RPH group,the difference was not statistically significant（P>0.05）;there were 2 cases（4.00%）of anal swelling and pain in CAES group,lower than 19 cases（38.00%）of anal swelling and pain in RPH group,the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）;there were 0 cases of anal stenosis in CAES group and 2cases（4.00%）of anal stenosis in RPH group,the difference was not statistically significant（P>0.05）.The length of hospital stay in the CAES group（5.90±1.75）were lower than those in the RPH group（11.64±1.41）,the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）.The hospitalization cost of CAES group（9996.45±2493.83）was less than that of RPH group（14720.77±1558.20）,and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）.One-year follow-up showed that in the CAES group,33 cases（66.00%）were very satisfied,11 cases（22.00%）were satisfied,and6 cases（12.00%）were dissatisfied,;in the RPH group,35 cases（70.00%）were very satisfied,12 cases（24.00%）satisfied,and 3 cases（6.00%）dissatisfied,the difference was not statistically significant（P>0.05）.During the 1-year follow-up,in the CAES group,42 cases（84.00%）were cured,3 cases（6.00%）were effective,and 5 cases（10.00%）were ineffective;in the RPH group,46 cases（92.00%）were cured,1 case（2.00%）was effective,and 3 cases（6.00%）were ineffective,the difference was not statistically significant（P>0.05）.Conclusion There was no significant difference in the clinical efficacy of CAES and RPH in the treatment of internal hemorrhoids,but compared with RPH,CAES has a shorter operation time and less in traoperative blood loss,which can better reduce postoperative pain of patients,the incidence of postoperative bleeding and anal swelling and pain,the length of hospital stay and the hospitalization costs are relatively low,which is more worthy of clinical recommendation for the treatment options for grade Ⅰ to Ⅲ internal hemorrhoids. |
PDF Full Text Request