ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Polidocanol foam sclerotherapy for hemorrhoidal disease in a private outpatient setting: a real-world single-center study combining chart review and WhatsApp-delivered patient-reported outcomes.
Article in Updates in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolidocanol foam sclerotherapy (PFS) is an effective office-based treatment for symptomatic hemorrhoidal disease (HD), but real-world data from private practice and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) at variable follow-up are scarce.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients treated with PFS (3% polidocanol, Tessari method) in a single private proctology office (December 2021-May 2026). Indication was primarily symptom-driven rather than based on Goligher grade. Two data sources were combined: session-level chart review and a structured digital questionnaire (Google Forms) delivered through a personalized WhatsApp invitation, exploring symptoms before and after treatment, post-procedural discomfort and satisfaction. Outcomes were also explored by time since the last session.
resultsEighty-four patients underwent 118 sessions (65.5% single). The survey response rate was 65.5% (55/84; median time from last treatment 64 days, range 1-1,438). Among patients symptomatic at baseline, improvement or resolution was reported by 95.8% (46/48) for bleeding, 97.4% (37/38) for heaviness/pain and 86.4% (38/44) for prolapse (composite 121/130, 93.1%). No or mild post-procedural discomfort was reported by 89.0%, overall satisfaction was 94.5%, and no severe discomfort was reported; no major adverse event was reported or documented. Chart review captured in-office follow-up after 38.1% of sessions, with persistence/recurrence in 63.4% of classifiable encounters. Chart and PROM estimates used different units and are not directly comparable; their discrepancy suggests return-to-clinic ascertainment bias.
conclusionsAmong respondents, PFS achieved high patient-reported symptom control and satisfaction. A WhatsApp-delivered PROM survey was feasible and may reduce the bias of clinic-return-based follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42791481What 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.