Outcomes of Rubber Band Ligation in Haemorrhoids Among Outdoor Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Out of all anorectal diseases, haemorrhoids are the most common benign disease. Haemorrhoids can be treated by various treatment modalities like medical, surgical, and instrumental. Instrumental treatment comprises rubber band ligation, sclerotherapy, and infrared and laser therapy. Out of these modalities, the rubber band ligation technique is the least invasive with a reduced rate of complications and without the need for hospitalization. Hence, the current study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes with respect to the effectiveness of rubber band ligation in grade II and III internal haemorrhoids along with the magnitude and pattern of post-procedural complications. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study, conducted on a sample of 100 patients who presented to our outdoor patient's department and were diagnosed with haemorrhoids, either grade II or III. All enrolled study patients having haemorrhoids were banded with rubber band by Barron Ligator (Precise, Canada) with local anaesthetic agent xylocaine jelly in a single session. All patients were followed on the 10th day, 1st month, and 6th month after the procedure to assess symptomatic improvement. The endpoint of this study is to know the effectiveness of rubber band ligation in different clinical parameters such as post-ligation pain or discomfort, the requirement of analgesic, any complication, and time off work. RESULTS: Out of 100 patients 17 patients had grade II and 83 patients had grade III haemorrhoids. Among them, 89% were symptomatically relieved after rubber band ligation whereas the rest 11% of patients had residual symptoms. CONCLUSION: Thus, we conclude that rubber band ligation for grade II and III haemorrhoids is simple, safer, easy-to-perform daycare procedure with lesser requirements of analgesics and without any need for anaesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".