ArticleBMC surgery2026
Ruiyun procedure for hemorrhoids versus tissue-selective therapy stapler for grade II-III hemorrhoids: an exploratory retrospective comparative study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Ruiyun procedure for hemorrhoids (RPH) and tissue-selecting therapy (TST) are two widely adopted minimally invasive techniques for treating Grade II-III hemorrhoids. This study aims to perform an exploratory comparison of the efficacy and safety of these two surgical techniques within a real-world clinical setting, thereby providing evidence to inform future prospective investigations.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 192 patients with Grade II-III hemorrhoids, comprising 80 patients who underwent RPH and 112 who underwent TST. The primary outcomes were the treatment effectiveness rate at one month and the recurrence rate within one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, time to return to normal activities, postoperative anal pain, complication rates, patient satisfaction, and PROM scores.
resultsThe two groups were comparable in baseline characteristics. No significant differences were found in the overall clinical efficacy or the one-year recurrence rate between the groups (p > 0.05). However, the RPH group demonstrated significant advantages, including shorter operative time, reduced intraoperative blood loss, faster return to normal activities, lower anal pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 3, a lower incidence of fecal urgency and higher patient satisfaction (all p < 0.05). No significant intergroup differences were observed in terms of anal distension, postoperative bleeding, anorectal stenosis, PROM scores, or anal pain on postoperative day 7 (p > 0.05).
conclusionWithin the context of this retrospective study, RPH demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of Grade II–III hemorrhoids. It exhibited favorable outcomes in reducing intraoperative blood loss, shortening operative time, minimizing postoperative complications, and facilitating a rapid return to normal activities. However, given the potential differences in baseline characteristics between the two patient groups, these observations cannot be directly interpreted as evidence of the superiority or inferiority of either technique. The observed differences in efficacy may be partially attributable to disparities in patient selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.