Long-term results of XXXX : two different devices with similar results.

@entity1 @entity158 @entity6713 @entity548
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of two different @entity6713 ( @entity6713 ) devices for symptomatic internal @entity6713 . @entity1 AND METHODS: From November 2000 to February 2001, 218 consecutive @entity1 with symptomatic @entity6713 were enrolled. A total of 109 @entity1 were treated with an @entity6713 device 9 mm in diameter (group A); the rest were treated with a device 13 mm in diameter (group B). The @entity1 ' clinical presentations were @entity548 and prolapse. The severity of the @entity6713 was classified using Goligher's grading. RESULTS: All @entity1 were treated for one session, and were followed from 19 to 24 months (mean 22.4 months). The number of band ligations averaged 2.59 in group A and 1.68 in group B. Most @entity1 had their @entity6713 reduced by at least one grade (82.8 % in group A and 90.8 % in group B). @entity548 was controlled in 108 @entity1 (99.1 %) in group A and 109 @entity1 (100 %) in group B, while rectal prolapse was reduced in 93 @entity1 (85.3 %) in group A and 99 @entity1 (90.8 %) in group B. Eleven @entity1 in group A and 12 in group B experienced @entity158 after treatment, and eight @entity1 in group A and six in group B had mild @entity548 . The @entity1 ' subjective satisfaction rates were 90.8 % in group A and 93.6 % in group B. The 1-year recurrence rates were 3.9 % in group A and 2.3 % in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Both @entity6713 devices can effectively treat symptomatic @entity6713 . A device with a smaller diameter requires more band ligations, but appears equivalent with regard to treatment outcome and complications.
