ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Flexible endoscopic treatment of internal hemorrhoids with versus without intravenous anesthesia: a retrospective study of 559 cases.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early hemodynamic changes following endoscopic sclerotherapy for hemorrhoidal disease assessed by transperineal ultrasound and their relationship with clinical outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFlexible endoscopic therapies are effective for grade II-III internal hemorrhoids; however, the impact of intravenous anesthesia on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic treatment performed with versus without anesthesia.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 559 patients who underwent endoscopic rubber band ligation (ERBL) or polidocanol foam sclerotherapy (EPFS) from May 2023 to November 2024. Patients were stratified by anesthesia modality (intravenous propofol vs. no anesthesia). Primary outcomes included procedure time, retreatment rate, symptom improvement, postoperative discomfort, patient satisfaction, total cost, and cost acceptance. Subgroup analysis was performed for EPFS cases.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups. The anesthesia group had shorter procedure times (median 10.5 vs. 11.3 min, P = 0.036) and a lower retreatment rate (1.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.003). Rates of symptom improvement (83.1% vs. 82.7%, P = 0.940), postoperative discomfort, and patient satisfaction were comparable. Although the total treatment cost was higher in the anesthesia group (CNY 2,140.6 vs. 1,732.7, P < 0.001), cost acceptance remained high in both groups (85.8% vs. 91.4%, P = 0.173). Subgroup analysis of EPFS cases yielded consistent findings.
conclusionsFlexible endoscopic treatment for internal hemorrhoids is safe and effective regardless of anesthesia use. Intravenous anesthesia improves procedural efficiency and reduces retreatment rates without compromising symptom relief or satisfaction. These findings support individualized anesthesia strategies tailored to patient preferences and institutional resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41269316What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.