Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Coloproctology 2025; 45(01): s00451805010
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1805010
Review Article

Treatment of Symptomatic Occult Prolapse by Rubber Band Ligation (RBL) in a Single Outpatient Centre: A Suggestion for an Alternative to Surgery

Maurizio Gentile 
1   Department of General Surgery, Endocrinology, Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy
,
Nunzio Velotti
1   Department of General Surgery, Endocrinology, Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy
,
Vincenzo Schiavone
1   Department of General Surgery, Endocrinology, Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy
,
Antonio Franzese
1   Department of General Surgery, Endocrinology, Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy
,
Sebastiano Di Lascio
1   Department of General Surgery, Endocrinology, Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding No funding was obtained for this study.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction

This study explores the efficacy of Rubber Band Ligation (RBL) as a treatment for symptomatic occult prolapse in a single outpatient center, proposing it as a viable alternative to traditional surgical methods. The research aims to assess patient outcomes, complication rates, and overall satisfaction with RBL, providing insights into its potential as a less invasive treatment option. Occult prolapse, often underdiagnosed, can significantly impact a patient's quality of life. Traditional surgical treatments, while effective, come with higher risks and longer recovery periods. This study investigates the use of RBL, a minimally invasive procedure commonly used for hemorrhoid treatment, as an alternative for addressing symptomatic occult prolapse.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients diagnosed with symptomatic occult prolapse at a single outpatient center. These patients underwent RBL treatment over a defined period. Data on patient demographics, symptoms, procedure details, and follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. The primary endpoints included symptom relief, complication rates, and patient satisfaction.

Results

The study included 186 patients with a mean age of 48.3 years. Symptom relief was achieved in about 80% of patients post-RBL, with a minor complication rate of 9%. Common complications included minor bleeding and discomfort, which were manageable with conservative measures. Results confirmed it is effective until 1 year with a low rate of complications and could be offered conservative treatment for mucosal prolapse.

Keywords

prolapse - rubber band ligation - complications - hospital stays

Author's Contribution

All authors contributed equally to the conception, design, execution, and interpretation of the research. They participated in writing and reviewing the manuscript, ensuring its accuracy and completeness. Each author has approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.




Publication History

Received: 05 December 2024

Accepted: 05 February 2025

Article published online:
26 March 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua Rego Freitas, 175, loja 1, República, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01220-010, Brazil

Bibliographical Record
Maurizio Gentile, Nunzio Velotti, Vincenzo Schiavone, Antonio Franzese, Sebastiano Di Lascio. Treatment of Symptomatic Occult Prolapse by Rubber Band Ligation (RBL) in a Single Outpatient Centre: A Suggestion for an Alternative to Surgery. Journal of Coloproctology 2025; 45: s00451805010.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1805010
 

  • References

  • 1 Ellis CN, Essani R. Treatment of obstructed defecation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2012; 25 (01) 24-33 10.1055/s-0032-1301756
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gourgiotis S, Baratsis S. Rectal prolapse. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22 (03) 231-243
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Drossman DA, Thompson WG, Talley NJ. et al. Identification of sub-groups of functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterol Int. 1990; 3: 159-172
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Kairaluoma MV, Kellokumpu IH. Epidemiologic aspects of complete rectal prolapse. Scand J Surg 2005; 94 (03) 207-210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Marceau C, Parc Y, Debroux E, Tiret E, Parc R. Complete rectal prolapse in young patients: psychiatric disease a risk factor of poor outcome. Colorectal Dis 2005; 7 (04) 360-365
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Pescatori M, Quondamcarlo C. A new grading of rectal internal mucosal prolapse and its correlation with diagnosis and treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 1999; 14 (4-5): 245-249 10.1007/s003840050218
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Pescatori M. . The Iceberg diagram for the treatment of obstructed defecation Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colo Rettale www.siccr.org 2019 ; 50: 430–439
  • 8 Blaisdell PC. Office ligation of internal hemorrhoids. Am J Surg 1958; 96 (03) 401-404
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Barron J. Office ligation of internal hemorrhoids. Am J Surg 1963; 105: 563-570
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sandler RS, Peery AF. Rethinking What We Know About Hemorrhoids. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17 (01) 8-15 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.03.020
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Siddiqui UD, Barth BA, Banerjee S. et al; ASGE Technology Committee. Devices for the endoscopic treatment of hemorrhoids. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79 (01) 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Picciariello A, O'Connell PR, Hahnloser D. et al. Obstructed defaecation syndrome: European consensus guidelines on the surgical management. Br J Surg 2021; 108 (10) 1149-1153
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Tsunoda A. Surgical Treatment of Rectal Prolapse in the Laparoscopic Era; A Review of the Literature. J Anus Rectum Colon 2020; 4 (03) 89-99 10.23922/jarc.2019-035
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Pescatori M, Favetta U, Dedola S, Orsini S. Transanalstapled excision of rectal mucosal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 1997; 1: 96-98 10.1093/bjs/znab123
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lindsey I. Internal rectal prolapse. In: Lindsey I, Nugent K, Dixon T. eds Pelvic Floor Disorders for the Colorectal Surgeon (Oxford, 2010; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 May 2013). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010: 93-102
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Fox A, Tietze PH, Ramakrishnan K. Anorectal conditions: rectal prolapse. FP Essent 2014; 419: 28-34
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kleinübing Jr H, Pinho MS, Ferreira LC. Longitudinal multiple rubber band ligation: an alternative method to treat mucosal prolapse of the anterior rectal wall. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49 (06) 876-878
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Niv Y, Abu-Avid S, Oren M. Internal rectal prolapse: rubber-band ligation as treatment for a neglected disease. Mt Sinai J Med 1990; 57 (02) 106-108
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Shiratori Y, Ikeya T, Fukuda K. Endoscopic band ligation for persistent mucosal prolapse syndrome. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 98 (05) 870-871
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Awad AE, Soliman HH, Saif SA, Darwish AM, Mosaad S, Elfert AA. A prospective randomised comparative study of endoscopic band ligation versus injection sclerotherapy of bleeding internal haemorrhoids in patients with liver cirrhosis. Arab J Gastroenterol 2012; 13 (02) 77-81 10.1016/j.ajg.2012.03.008
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Aram FO. Rubber Band Ligation for Hemorrhoids: an Office Experience. Indian J Surg 2016; 78 (04) 271-274 10.1007/s12262-015-1353-1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 El Nakeeb AM, Fikry AA, Omar WH. et al. Rubber band ligation for 750 cases of symptomatic hemorrhoids out of 2200 cases. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14 (42) 6525-6530 10.3748/wjg.14.6525
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Dekker L, Han-Geurts IJM, Rørvik HD, van Dieren S, Bemelman WA. Rubber band ligation versus haemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of grade II-III haemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 2021; 25 (06) 663-674 10.1007/s10151-021-02430-x
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Sajid MS, Bhatti MI, Caswell J, Sains P, Baig MK. Local anaesthetic infiltration for the rubber band ligation of early symptomatic haemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Updates Surg 2015; 67 (01) 3-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Watson NF, Liptrott S, Maxwell-Armstrong CA. A prospective audit of early pain and patient satisfaction following out-patient band ligation of haemorrhoids. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2006; 88 (03) 275-279
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Albuquerque A. Rubber band ligation of hemorrhoids: A guide for complications. World J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 8 (09) 614-620 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i9.614
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Brown SR, Tiernan JP, Watson AJM. et al; HubBLe Study team. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids (HubBLe): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388 (10042): 356-364 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30584-0 Erratum in: Lancet. 2016 Jul 23;388(10042):342. PMID: 27236344; PMCID: PMC4956910
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Giordano P. The HubBle trial: a word of caution. Lancet 2016; 388 (10063): 2995-2996 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32531-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Riss S, Weiser FA, Schwameis K. et al. The prevalence of hemorrhoids in adults. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27 (02) 215-220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Cheng FCY, Shum DWP, Ong GB. The treatment of second degree haemorrhoids by injection, rubber band ligation, maximal anal dilatation, and haemorrhoidectomy: a prospective clinical trial. Aust N Z J Surg 1981; 51 (05) 458-462
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Bakhtawar A, Khalid MA, Arshad A. Comparison of Milligan - Morgan haemorrhoidectomy vs rubber band ligation in management of haemorrhoids. Med Forum Mon 2017; 28 (09) 83-86
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Murie JA, Mackenzie I, Sim AJ. Comparison of rubber band ligation and haemorrhoidectomy for second- and third-degree haemorrhoids: a prospective clinical trial. Br J Surg 1980; 67 (11) 786-788 10.1002/bjs.1800671108
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Altomare DF. ODS score and obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53 (03) 363 , author reply 363 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181cbf35b
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Iyer VS, Shrier I, Gordon PH. Long-term outcome of rubber band ligation for symptomatic primary and recurrent internal hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47 (08) 1364-1370
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Rivadeneira DE, Steele SR, Ternent C, Chalasani S, Buie WD, Rafferty JL. Standards Practice Task Force of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 2011; 54 (09) 1059-1064
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Davis BR, Lee-Kong SA, Migaly J, Feingold DL, Steele SR. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61 (03) 284-292 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001030
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar