The Comparison Between Endoscopic Ligation and Sclerotherapy on the Treatment Effect and Anorectal Function in...

To evaluate the treatment effect of endoscopic ligation and cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy (CAES) for patients with internal hemorrhoids, symptom relief, complication rate and psychological condition, and the anorectal function were observed.

Thirty-two patients who underwent minimally invasive endoscopic treatment for internal hemorrhoids were recruited, with a 3-month follow-up. Patients were divided into 2 groups, with Group A undergoing endoscopic ligation (n=14) and Group B receiving CAES (n=18). The Clinical efficacy and anorectal function between the 2 groups before and after treatment were compared, and the psychological changes in patients before and after treatment were evaluated by various scales.

There was no significant difference in the treatment effect of postoperative bleeding, prolapse, constipation, and complications between the 2 groups. However, Group A has certain advantages in the treatment of prolapse and constipation before and after treatment, and Group B has certain advantages in bleeding. The comprehensive multiscale psychological evaluation showed no significant difference between the 2 groups before and after treatment, but the psychological condition of patients in both groups was significantly improved after treatment. Besides, patients in Group A were better in the improvement of constipation scale, and patients in Group B had a greater improvement in the pain scale. As for anorectal function, there was no significant difference before and after treatment, except for the squeeze duration before treatment. In the comparison pretreatment and post-treatment, patients in Group A had significant differences in resting (average), first defecation and squeeze (average), while patients in Group B had significant differences in resting (average) and first defecation.

Two endoscopic therapies were effective in treating internal hemorrhoids, with no significant difference in terms of treatment effect, symptom relief, complication rate, psychological condition, and anorectal function when compared between 2 groups. However, when compared within each group, the different methods had their own advantages in the evaluation of treatment effect and anorectal function.