Prospective randomized comparative study of bipolar versus direct current electrocoagulation for treatment of bleeding internal hemorrhoids

Abstract

Internal hemorrhoids are the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Although new anoscopic therapies are available, few comparative randomized studies have evaluated them in regard to long-term efficacy, recurrence rates, and safety. Our purpose was to compare the treatment of internal hemorrhoids with direct current (Ultroid, Cabot Medical, Langhorn, Pa.) and bipolar (BICAP, Circon ACMI, Stamford, Conn.) hemorrhoid probes. One hundred patients with symptomatic internal hemorrhoids were randomized: 50 to direct current electrocoagulation and 50 to bipolar electrocoagulation. Follow-up and treatment were at 3- to 4-weekly intervals; two to three hemorrhoid segments were treated at each session until relief of symptoms (bleeding, prolapse, and discharge) and a reduction in hemorrhoid size to grade 1 or 0 were noted. The hemorrhoids of 98% of all patients studied were grade 2 or 3; 2% of patients had grade 1 hemorrhoids and none had grade 4 hemorrhoids. At 1 year after treatment, most patients had no (69%) or only mild (23%) recurrence, and a few had severe, symptomatic (8%) hemorrhoid recurrence. A greater recurrence rate was noted after direct current treatment (34%) than bipolar treatment (29%). In contrast, rebleeding at 1 year occurred less frequently after direct current treatment (5%) than after bipolar treatment (20%). Our conclusions were as follows: (1) Both direct current and bipolar probes were effective for control of chronic bleeding from grade 1 to 3 internal hemorrhoids. (2) Bipolar probe was significantly faster than direct current probe. (3) Direct current treatment produced fewer complications than bipolar treatment (12% versus 14%). (4) Recurrence rates were low after 1 year with either device (8%). (5) More recurrences were noted after direct current electrocoagulation (34%) than after bipolar electrocoagulation (29%). (Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:403-10.)