Hemoroid Tedavi Merkezi  İstanbul IDEA Klinik Telefonları  Hemoroid Tedavi Merkezleri
 Medical Art Hemoroid Tedavi Merkezi

Hemoroid Galvanizasyon Tedavisi

Galvanizasyon yöntemiyle ilgili yapılmış bilimsel çalışmalar sayfaya eklenmiştir.Türkiyeden çalışmalar yapılması yada yapan kişinin elindeki bilgileri vermesi halinde türkçe yayında eklenecektir.

Uzman yorumu için şu linke bakılabilir

http://www.doktoronerileri.com/galvanizasyonla-hemoroid-tedavisi

 

Comparison between Ultroid and rubber band ligation in treatment of internal hemorrhoids.

Azizi R, Rabani-Karizi B, Taghipour MA.

Source

Department of Surgery, Hazrat-e-Rasoul Medical Complex, Colorectal Unit, Tehran, Iran. razizimd@hotmail.com

Abstract

Hemorrhoid is one of the most common surgical diseases and different methods are available for its treatment. This study is a comparison between two methods of treatment of internal hemorrhoid, Monopolar low voltage instrument (Ultroid) and Rubber Band Ligation. This method has been carried out prospectively in which 50 patients who were treated with rubber band ligation and 50 patients with Ultroid were compared according to the incidence of complications, post-operative pain and treatment response. According to this study complete success rate with Ultroid was 82% and partial success rate was 10% and no response to treatment was seen in 8%. In Rubber Band method the complete response rate was 94% (P=0.2). With Ultroid, 74% of patient reported no postoperative pain, 24% reported mild and moderate pain and 2% of patients complained of severe pain. With Rubber band ligation, 72% of patients reported no post-operative pain, 26% reported mild and moderate pain and 1% complained of severe pain (P=0.00). Rubber Band ligation and Ultroid are both considered as outpatient procedures for treatment of hemorrhoids. Both methods are mostly used for grade 1, 2 and sometime grade 3 hemorrhoids. In Ultroid method the operator is required to hold the probe for a period of time, and in most cases, the surgeon should spend between 20-25 minutes for the coagulation of three piles. Some surgeons do not have patience for this modality of internal hemorrhoid treatment. In this study we achieved acceptable results comparable with those of other techniques.

PMID:

21287479

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

 

 

Prospective randomized comparative study of bipolar versus direct current electrocoagulation for treatment of bleeding internal hemorrhoids.

Randall GM, Jensen DM, Machicado GA, Hirabayashi K, Jensen ME, You S, Pelayo E.

Source

West Los Angeles Veterans Administration, University of California.

Abstract

Internal hemorrhoids are the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although new anoscopic therapies are available, few comparative randomized studies have evaluated them in regard to long-term efficacy, recurrence rates, and safety. Our purpose was to compare the treatment of internal hemorrhoids with direct current (Ultroid, Cabot Medical, Langhorn, Pa.) and bipolar (BICAP, Circon ACMI, Stamford, Conn.) hemorrhoid probes. One hundred patients with symptomatic internal hemorrhoids were randomized: 50 to direct current electrocoagulation and 50 to bipolar electrocoagulation. Follow-up and treatment were at 3- to 4-weekly intervals; two to three hemorrhoid segments were treated at each session until relief of symptoms (bleeding, prolapse, and discharge) and a reduction in hemorrhoid size to grade 1 or 0 were noted. The hemorrhoids of 98% of all patients studied were grade 2 or 3; 2% of patients had grade 1 hemorrhoids and none had grade 4 hemorrhoids. At 1 year after treatment, most patients had no (69%) or only mild (23%) recurrence, and a few had severe, symptomatic (8%) hemorrhoid recurrence. A greater recurrence rate was noted after direct current treatment (34%) than bipolar treatment (29%). In contrast, rebleeding at 1 year occurred less frequently after direct current treatment (5%) than after bipolar treatment (20%). Our conclusions were as follows: (1) Both direct current and bipolar probes were effective for control of chronic bleeding from grade 1 to 3 internal hemorrhoids. (2) Bipolar probe was significantly faster than direct current probe. (3) Direct current treatment produced fewer complications than bipolar treatment (12% versus 14%). (4) Recurrence rates were low after 1 year with either device (8%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

PMID:

7926528

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

 

Prospective randomised comparison of current coagulation and injection sclerotherapy for the outpatient treatment of haemorrhoids.

Varma JS, Chung SC, Li AK.

Source

Department of Surgery, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories.

Abstract

The feasibility and early results of a new technique of outpatient proctoscopic coagulation of haemorrhoids by means of an electronic probe (Ultroid, Microvasive Inc., USA) were evaluated in comparison to conventional injection sclerotherapy. Age, symptom and sex-matched groups were analysed before and 6 weeks after outpatient treatment, using scoring systems (n = 51). A mean of 6.2 +/- 0.4 ml of phenol in oil were injected over 2.4 +/- 0.2 min compared to a mean current of 15.8 +/- 0.2 mA over a period of 11.9 +/- 0.8 min (p less than 0.001, treatment time). Sclerotherapy was found significantly less tedious than coagulation. More patients complained of discomfort during coagulation, but the difference in tolerance scores between the 2 groups was not significant. Three patients in the coagulation group but none in the injection group refused to be treated by the same method again due to discomfort. Significant benefits were achieved by both modes of treatment after 6 weeks. The early cure rates for bleeding were 84% for sclerotherapy and 64% for coagulation (p = 0.2) and for prolapse 56% and 44% respectively (p = 0.72). Injection sclerotherapy is preferable to Ultroid coagulation for the outpatient treatment of haemorrhoids because it is a quicker, less tedious and more comfortable procedure with equally effective early results.

PMID:

2033353

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

 

 

A personal experience in comparing three nonoperative techniques for treating internal hemorrhoids.

Zinberg SS, Stern DH, Furman DS, Wittles JM.

Source

Gastrointestinal Laboratories, Brea Community Hospital, California.

Abstract

Infrared photocoagulation therapy was used on a total of 302 patients. Approximately 20% of the patients experienced minor bleeding; however, two required surgery, and 30% of the patients experienced discomfort during a 14-day period following the procedure. Good results were obtained in patients with first- and second-degree hemorrhoids. Heater probe coagulation therapy was conducted in a total of 264 patients. Good results were achieved in 90% of patients with first- and second-degree hemorrhoids, minor pain and bleeding occurred in approximately 10% of these patients, and one patient with third-degree hemorrhoids who was treated with this technique failed to respond and required surgery. Ultroid d.c. current therapy was utilized in 192 patients, and follow-up results were good in 95% of these cases. Minor bleeding occurred in four patients. It is concluded that all three techniques, performed on an outpatient basis with little or no sedation, are effective modalities for first- and second-degree hemorrhoids, but that Ultroid d.c. current therapy is associated with less discomfort and fewer complications and that Ultroid therapy may yield good results in some patients with third- or even fourth-degree hemorrhoids.

PMID:

2719004

[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

 

Bu makaleler  hemoroidin bilimsel tedavileri hakkında yapılmış 6140 çalışma içinden galvanizasyon olarak türkçeleştilen ultroid tedavisiyle ilgili olanlardır.Ve 6140 çalışmanın sadece 4 tanesi ultroid ile ilgilidir.Bu da dünyanın ultroid konusundaki yaklaşımını göstermektedir.

 

Yorum yapılmamış