Comparison of Rubber Band Ligation and Haemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Haemorrhoids Grade III

NCT ID: NCT04621695

Last Updated: 2021-03-16

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

360 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-11-25

Study Completion Date

2023-11-25

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Rationale: Haemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common anorectal disorders which affects nearly half of the general population1. Given the current numerous modalities the obvious question which needs to be answered is which treatment is the best. An interesting conclusion from a recent systematic review regarding operative procedures for haemorrhoidal disease is that all procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages. There is a need for evaluating treatment from the patient's point of view and transparency in surgical and non-surgical treatment outcome. So far there is no sufficiently large trial that meets that demand.

Objective: To establish the best treatment of patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids grade III: haemorrhoidectomy versus rubber band ligation (RBL). Patient bound effectiveness, clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of both treatments is compared; primary outcome is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L with Dutch rating and recurrence at one year post procedure. The assumption is that treatment with rubber band ligation is equally effective in comparison with haemorrhoidectomy in terms of quality of life.

Study design:Multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with cost-utility analysis. Two treatment protocols are compared: haemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation.

Study population: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with symptomatic haemorrhoids gr III. Patients are recruited in multiple clinics during 18-24 months.

Intervention: Participants are allocated to either rubber band ligation or haemorrhoidectomy.

Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome measure is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L with Dutch rating and recurrence at one year post procedure. Secondary outcomes are: complaint reduction with proctology specific patient-related outcome measure (HSS, PROM, PROMHISS), vaizey score, resumption of work, pain (VAS), complications and recurrence at two years.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Hemorrhoids Hemorrhoids, Internal PROM Rectal Diseases

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Rubber band ligation

Rubber band ligation is performed by a suction device that allows a rubber band to be applied at the base of the haemorrhoid via a proctoscope. Maximal suction force used is 40 mmHg. A maximum of 3-4 bands are used per session. This rubber band constricts the blood supply causing it to become ischaemic before being sloughed approximately 1-2 weeks later. The resultant fibrosis reduces any element of haemorrhoidal prolapse that may have been present. No sedation is required for this day-care procedure. Patients are asked to administer an enema 2 hours prior to the procedure.

Group Type OTHER

RBL

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Both arms are standard care procedures in the Netherlands

Hemorrhoidectomy

There are two main excisional procedures currently carried out: open (Milligan and Morgan) and closed (Ferguson). Both have the intention of excising the haemorrhoidal cushions. The procedure is performed under either general or spinal anaesthesia in a day-care setting.

Patients were asked to administer an enema 2 hours prior to the procedure.

Group Type OTHER

Hemorrhoidectomy

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Both arms are standard care procedures in the Netherlands

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

RBL

Both arms are standard care procedures in the Netherlands

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Hemorrhoidectomy

Both arms are standard care procedures in the Netherlands

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Haemorrhoids grade III (Goligher classification)
* Age 18 years and older
* Sufficient understanding of the Dutch written language (reading and writing)

Exclusion Criteria

* Previous rectal or anal surgery with the exception of rubber band ligation
* Previous surgery for haemorrhoids (at any time)
* More than one injection treatment for haemorrhoids in the past 3 years
* More than one rubber band ligation procedure in the past 3 years
* Previous rectal radiation
* Pre-existing sphincter injury
* Inflammatory bowel disease
* Medically unfit for surgery or for completion of the trial (ASA\>III)
* Pregnancy
* Hyper-coagulability disorders
* Patients previously randomised to this trial
* Not able or willing to provide written informed consent
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Proctos Kliniek

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

dr. IJM Han-Geurts

Principal investigator

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Ingrid Han-Geurts, MD PhD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Proctos Kliniek

Willem Bemelman, Prof.

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Flevoziekenhuis

Almere Stad, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Meander MC

Amersfoort, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

OLVG

Amsterdam, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

University Medical Center location AMC

Amsterdam, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

IJsselland ziekenhuis

Capelle aan den IJssel, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Groene Hart ziekenhuis

Gouda, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

MUMC+

Maastricht, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Centraal Militair Hospitaal

Utrecht, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Diakonessenhuis

Utrecht, , Netherlands

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Netherlands

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Lisette Dekker, MD

Role: CONTACT

+31612204316

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Schouten, dr.

Role: primary

Verheijen, dr.

Role: primary

de Castro, dr.

Role: primary

Bemelman, prof. dr.

Role: primary

van Ruler, dr.

Role: primary

Baeten, dr.

Role: primary

Breukink, dr.

Role: primary

Meij, dr.

Role: primary

Schiphorst, dr.

Role: primary

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

van Oostendorp JY, Dekker L, van Dieren S, Veldkamp R, Bemelman WA, Han-Geurts IJM; HOLLAND study group. Cost-Effectiveness of Rubber Band Ligation Versus Hemorrhoidectomy for the Treatment of Grade III Hemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence From the HOLLAND Randomized Controlled Trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2025 Sep 1;68(9):1100-1111. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003832. Epub 2025 Jun 10.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 40492557 (View on PubMed)

van Oostendorp JY, Dekker L, van Dieren S, Veldkamp R, Bemelman WA, Han-Geurts IJM; HollAND Study Group. Comparison of Rubber Band Ligation and Hemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Hemorrhoids Grade III: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2025 May 1;68(5):572-583. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003679. Epub 2025 Feb 14.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 39952268 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

NL69227.018.19

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.