Hemorrhoids Clinical Trial
Official title:
Cost-effectiveness and Effectiveness of Rubber Band Ligation Versus Sutured Mucopexy Versus Haemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Recurrent Haemorrhoidal Disease: a Multicentre,Randomized Controlled Trial
Rationale: There is level I evidence in literature that the first management step of HD is
basic treatment, including laxatives and high fibre dieti, ii. The next treatment modality
after basic treatment in case of persistent symptoms is rubber band ligation (RBL), which can
be repeated if necessary.
There is currently no consensus and a lack of evidence regarding the best treatment option
for these patients having recurrent HD: continuing RBL or a surgical intervention.
Furthermore, there is no estimate of costs and cost-effectiveness in this patient group.
Objective: The primary objective of this RCT is to compare the effectiveness of RBL, sutured
mucopexy and haemorrhoidectomy regarding recurrence and patient-reported symptoms for
recurrent grade 2 and 3 HD after at least 2 previous RBL treatments. Secondary objectives are
to compare RBL, sutured mucopexy and haemorrhoidectomy for recurrent grade 2 and 3 HD after
previous RBL treatments in terms of early and late complications, impact of symptoms on daily
activities, patient satisfaction with treatment, health-related quality of life, costs and
cost-effectiveness, and budget impact.
Study design: Dutch prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial.
Study population: Patients ≥18 who have recurrent grade 2 or 3 haemorrhoidal disease and who
had at least 2 rubber band ligation treatments. In total, 558 patients will be included.
Intervention: Rubber band ligation versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy. All
three interventions are part of Dutch usual care, and serve as each other's control.
Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcomes are (1) recurrence and (2) patient-reported
symptoms assessed after 12 months. Secondary outcome variables are early and late
complications, impact of symptoms on daily activities, patient satisfaction with treatment,
health-related quality of life, costs, cost-effectiveness and budget-impact.
Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) is the most common type of anorectal complaint in the Netherlands,
with an annual prevalence of 10% in general practice. There is level I evidence in literature
that the first management step of HD is basic treatment,including laxatives and high fibre
diet. The general practitioner usually offers basic treatment. If basic treatment fails
patients are referred to the hospital. About 50.000 patients are referred to a hospital for
HD in the Netherlands annually. The next treatment modality after basic treatment in case of
persistent symptoms is rubber band ligation (RBL), which can be repeated if necessary. RBL is
an easy, cheap and outpatient-based procedure. Thirty per cent of the patients, approximately
15.000 patients a year, develop recurrent symptoms after basic treatment and repeat RBL.
There is currently no consensus and a lack of evidence regarding the best treatment option
for these patients having recurrent HD: continuing RBL or a surgical intervention. Literature
indicates that haemorrhoidectomy is the surgical treatment of choice based on outcomes like
recurrencerate. The major drawback of this technique is that it is very painful and more
costly compared to RBL. A relatively novel, but regular surgical alternative is the sutured
mucopexy. Although hospital costs of sutured mucopexy are comparable to haemorrhoidectomy,
the operation is less painful and requires less recuperation time. The recurrence rate of
sutured mucopexy is ranked between that of RBL and haemorrhoidectomy.
A Dutch national survey conducted by our research group evaluating the management practices
of HD demonstrated considerable variation in the best (surgical) treatment option regarding
recurrent HD, resulting in potentially undesirable practice variation. The treatment of
recurrent grade 2 or 3 HD currently depends on the preference and the experience of the
surgeon and of the patient, without high level evidence substantiating this practice
variation. This implies a need for a high quality study regarding the treatment of recurrent
grade 2 or 3 HD. Diminishing this practice variation will endorse cost-effectiveness in
healthcare settings.To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT worldwide comparing RBL,
sutured mucopexy and haemorrhoidectomy in recurrent grade 2 or 3 HD and generating high-level
evidence of the (cost-) effectiveness. The investigators consider combining 2 trials in one
with a direct comparison between these three interventions to be an efficient research
approach.
Up till now, trials were mostly powered on traditional outcomes like recurrence, a definition
that differs widely between studies.To improve transparency between studies and facilitate
the ability to compare and combine (future) studies, our research group developed a European
Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Core Outcome Set (COS) for HD. This international COS for HD
selected 'patient-reported symptoms' as primary outcome. Additionally, the investigators
recently developed a patient reported symptom score for HD: the PROM-HISS. This PROM is based
on most cited symptoms in literature and patient interviews. The patient advisory board (PAB)
of this project underlines the clinical relevance of this PROM. As the PROM-HISS has not yet
been used in other studies and has to be validated, the investigators will additionally use
patient-reported symptoms assessed by the PROM-HISS, next to recurrence, as primary outcome
in this trial.
;
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT06216223 -
Laser Versus Surgery in Anal Diseases in Inflammatory Bowel Patients
|
N/A | |
Withdrawn |
NCT02851940 -
Pain and Bleeding Following Hypertonic Saline Sclerotherapy Compared to Brand Ligation for Symptomatic Hemorrhoids
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT02301052 -
Evaluation of Allium Ampeloprasum Spp.Iranicum Cream Effect for the Management of Hemorrhoids Symptoms
|
Phase 1/Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT02216305 -
HAL-RAR Versus Hemorrhoidectomy in the Treatment of Grade III-IV Hemorrhoids. Prospective, Randomized Trial
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT02358174 -
Hemorrhoids and Metalloproteinases, Observational Study
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT01483833 -
Efficacy Study of Iferanserin to Treat Hemorrhoids
|
Phase 2 | |
Completed |
NCT00397137 -
Stapled Anopexy Versus Closed Haemorrhoidectomy for Haemorrhoids
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT00841620 -
Symptom Control 1-year After Circular Stapler Anopexy or Diathermy Excision for Prolapsed Haemorhoids
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT06459739 -
Effect of Sacral Erector Spinae Plane Block on Hemorrhoid and Pilonidal Sinus Surgery
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04276298 -
Topical Analgesia Post-Haemorrhoidectomy
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT04675177 -
Polidocanol Foam VS Artery Ligation in Hemorrhoidal Disease
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Recruiting |
NCT05889962 -
Ultrasound-guided Pudendal Nerve Block for Pain After Hemorrhoidectomy
|
N/A | |
Recruiting |
NCT01961739 -
Topical 2% Lidocaine for the Treatment of Symptomatic Hemorrhoids
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Active, not recruiting |
NCT02061176 -
THD Versus Open Haemorrhoidectomy
|
N/A | |
Withdrawn |
NCT00512044 -
Local Versus General Anaesthesia in Stapled Hemorrhoidectomy
|
Phase 4 | |
Completed |
NCT04031131 -
The Use of Topical Anaesthetic in the Banding of Internal Haemorrhoids
|
Phase 2 | |
Recruiting |
NCT04329364 -
RCT Comparing Conventional Haemorrhoidectomy With Laser Haemorrhoidoplasty
|
Phase 2/Phase 3 | |
Completed |
NCT04567485 -
Impact of Moderate to Severe Pain in the Post-intervention Monitoring Room After Hemorrhoidectomy on the Length of Stay in the Outpatient Surgery Unit
|
||
Completed |
NCT05247333 -
Implementation of a Minor Ailment Service in Community Pharmacy Practice
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT03298997 -
Ligation and Hemorrhoidopexy Technique Versus Ligation of Hemorrhoidal Arteries Using Ultrasound for Hemorrhoids
|
N/A |