Rationale: Haemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common anorectal disorders which affects nearly half of the general population1. Given the current numerous modalities the obvious question which needs to be answered is which treatment is the best. An interesting conclusion from a recent systematic review regarding operative procedures for haemorrhoidal disease is that all procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages. There is a need for evaluating treatment from the patient's point of view and transparency in surgical and non-surgical treatment outcome. So far there is no sufficiently large trial that meets that demand. Objective: To establish the best treatment of patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids grade III: haemorrhoidectomy versus rubber band ligation (RBL). Patient bound effectiveness, clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of both treatments is compared; primary outcome is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L with Dutch rating and recurrence at one year post procedure. The assumption is that treatment with rubber band ligation is equally effective in comparison with haemorrhoidectomy in terms of quality of life. Study design:Multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with cost-utility analysis. Two treatment protocols are compared: haemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation. Study population: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with symptomatic haemorrhoids gr III. Patients are recruited in multiple clinics during 18-24 months. Intervention: Participants are allocated to either rubber band ligation or haemorrhoidectomy. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome measure is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L with Dutch rating and recurrence at one year post procedure. Secondary outcomes are: complaint reduction with proctology specific patient-related outcome measure (HSS, PROM, PROMHISS), vaizey score, resumption of work, pain (VAS), complications and recurrence at two years.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Health related quality of life
Timeframe: 24 months
Recurrence
Timeframe: at 12 months
In-hospital direct costs
Timeframe: this will be asked at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months
In-hospital indirect costs
Timeframe: this will be asked at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months
Out-of-hospital postoperative costs
Timeframe: this will be asked at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months