Outcomes of embolization therapy of superior rectal arteries for the management of grade 1 to 3 internal hemorrhoids: a systematic Review of clinical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Superior rectal artery embolization ("Emborrhoid") offers a catheter-based alternative for grade I-III internal hemorrhoids when office therapies fail or surgery is undesirable. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020, PubMed and Embase were searched (Jan 2014-Jan 2024). Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and applied RoB 2, ROBINS-I, or an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Prespecified outcomes were technical success, clinical success (≥ 2-point fall in bleeding score or equivalent), adverse events, and recurrence. Substantial heterogeneity blocked meta-analysis; results were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies encompassing 810 procedures qualified. Technical success reached 93-100%. Clinical success ranged from 63 to 94%, yielding marked bleeding control and symptom relief. Reported complications were mild and self-limited (pelvic discomfort, nausea, and low-grade fever); no ischemic injury, continence disturbance, or mortality occurred. Recurrence necessitating repeat treatment affected 8-20% of patients, usually when collateral arterial supply persisted. Patient-reported satisfaction exceeded 80% in every series. Only two small, heterogeneous comparative studies versus rubber-band ligation or sclerotherapy were available, precluding a pooled analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests Emborrhoid is a safe, effective bridge between office procedures and surgery-particularly valuable for frail or anticoagulated patients. Yet small single-center cohorts, disparate techniques, and scarce head-to-head trials limit external validity. Multicenter randomized studies with harmonized outcomes and ≥ 24-month follow-up are required to confirm long-term efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and optimal patient selection.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".