Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 1:41 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-29 @ 10:24 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04621695
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2021-03-16
First Post:
2020-10-23
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Comparison of Rubber Band Ligation and Haemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Haemorrhoids Grade III
Sponsor:
Proctos Kliniek
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Comparison of Rubber Band Ligation and Haemorrhoidectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Haemorrhoids Grade III: a Multicentre, Randomized Controlled Trial and Cost-utility Analysis.
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2021-03
Last Known Status:
RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
HollAND
Brief Summary:
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.
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:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: