Ligation anopexy versus hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of second- and third-degree hemorrhoids

Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy Plus Ligation Anopexy With Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy for Managing Grade III and IV Hemorrhoidal Disease

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of the stapled hemorrhoidopexy in the short term, management of prolapsing hemorrhoids, the long-term results are still insufficient regarding recurrent prolapse and patient satisfaction. The current study investigates the addition of ligation anopexy to stapled hemorrhoidopexy.

OBJECTIVE

Valuation of adding ligation anopexy to stapled hemorrhoidopexy in improving short-term and long-term results in the treatment of grade III and IV hemorrhoids.

DATA SOURCES

Between January 2018 and January 2020, we recruited 124 patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids at Alexandria Main University Hospital.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trial.

INTERVENTIONS

One hundred twenty-four patients were blindly randomly assigned to 2 equal groups: stapled hemorrhoidopexy (group I) and stapled hemorrhoidopexy plus ligation anopexy (group II).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recurrence of hemorrhoids and patient satisfaction after a follow-up period of at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The average operating time was noticeably less in the stapled hemorrhoidopexy group. Postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, hemorrhoid symptoms score, return to work, complications rate, and quality of life 1 month after surgery were similar between groups. Following a mean follow-up of 36 months (interval, 24-47), in group I, 10 patients (16%) reported recurrent external swelling and/or prolapse compared to 3 patients (5%) in group II ( p  = 0.0368). Five patients in group I required redo surgery, whereas no patients required redo surgery in group II. Long-term patient satisfaction was significantly better in group II.

LIMITATIONS

It was a single-center experience, so longer follow-up was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Stapled hemorrhoidopexy and stapled hemorrhoidopexy plus ligation anopexy were similar in short-term results with regard to complications rate, hemorrhoids symptoms score, return to work, and quality of life. Long-term results were significantly better with regard to recurrence of external swelling and/or prolapse and patient satisfaction after stapled hemorrhoidopexy plus ligation anopexy. See Video Abstract .

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Pan African Clinical Trials Registry identifier PACTR20180100293130.

ECA PARA COMPARAR LA HEMORROIDOPEXIA CON GRAPAS MS ANOPEXIA POR LIGADURA CON LA HEMORROIDOPEXIA CON GRAPAS PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DE LA ENFERMEDAD HEMORROIDAL DE GRADO III Y IV

ANTECEDENTES:A pesar de los beneficios de la hemorroidopexia con grapas a corto plazo, el manejo de las hemorroides prolapsadas, los resultados a largo plazo aún son insuficientes en cuanto al prolapso recurrente y la satisfacción del paciente, por lo que en nuestro estudio actual agregamos anopexia por ligadura a la hemorroidopexia con grapas.OBJETIVO:Valoración de añadir anopexia por ligadura a la hemorroidopexia con grapas para mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo en el tratamiento de las hemorroides grado III-IV.FUENTES DE DATOS:Entre enero de 2018 y enero de 2020 reclutamos a 124 pacientes con hemorroides de grado III-IV en el hospital universitario principal de Alexandria.SELECCIÓN DEL ESTUDIO:Ensayo controlado aleatorio PACTR201801002931307.INTERVENCIÓN(S):124 pacientes fueron asignados al azar de forma ciega a dos grupos iguales, hemorroidopexia con grapas (grupo I) y hemorroidopexia con grapas más anopexia por ligadura (grupo II).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Recurrencia de hemorroides y satisfacción del paciente después de un período de seguimiento de al menos dos años.RESULTADOS:El tiempo operatorio promedio fue notablemente menor en el grupo de hemorroidopexia con grapas. Mientras tanto, el dolor posoperatorio, la necesidad de analgesia, la puntuación de los síntomas de hemorroides, el regreso al trabajo, la tasa de complicaciones y la calidad de vida un mes después de la cirugía fueron similares. Después de un seguimiento medio de 36 meses (intervalo: 24-47), el Grupo I, 10 pacientes (16%) se quejaron de inflamación externa recurrente y/o prolapso en comparación con 3 pacientes (5%) en el Grupo II ( p = 0,0368) que requiere rehacer la cirugía. No fue necesaria una nueva cirugía en el grupo II; además, la satisfacción del paciente a largo plazo fue significativamente mejor en el grupo II.LIMITACIONES:Se necesita un seguimiento más prolongado y experiencia en un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:La hemorroidopexia con grapas comparada con la hemorroidopexia con grapas más anopexia por ligadura fue similar en resultados a corto plazo en cuanto a tasa de complicaciones, puntuación de síntomas de hemorroides, regreso al trabajo y calidad de vida. Los resultados a largo plazo fueron significativamente mejores en cuanto a la recurrencia de la inflamación externa y/o el prolapso y la satisfacción del paciente después de la hemorroidopexia con grapas más anopexia por ligadura. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Interventional treatments for prolapsing haemorrhoids: network meta-analysis

Background

Multiple treatments for early–moderate grade symptomatic haemorrhoids currently exist, each associated with their respective efficacy, complications, and risks. The aim of this study was to compare the relative clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventional treatments for grade II–III haemorrhoids.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA criteria for all the RCTs published between 1980 and 2020; manuscripts were identified using the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing procedural interventions for grade II–III haemorrhoids. Primary outcomes of interest were: symptom recurrence at a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks, postprocedural pain measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 1, and postprocedural complications (bleeding, urinary retention, and bowel incontinence). After bias assessment and heterogeneity analysis, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Seventy-nine RCTs were identified, including 9232 patients. Fourteen different treatments were analysed in the network meta-analysis. Overall, there were 59 RCTs (73 per cent) judged as being at high risk of bias, and the greatest risk was in the domain measurement of outcome. Variable amounts of heterogeneity were detected in direct treatment comparisons, in particular for symptom recurrence and postprocedural pain. Recurrence of haemorrhoidal symptoms was reported by 54 studies, involving 7026 patients and 14 treatments. Closed haemorrhoidectomy had the lowest recurrence risk, followed by open haemorrhoidectomy, suture ligation with mucopexy, stapled haemorrhoidopexy, and Doppler-guided haemorrhoid artery ligation (DG-HAL) with mucopexy. Pain was reported in 34 studies involving 3812 patients and 11 treatments. Direct current electrotherapy, DG-HAL with mucopexy, and infrared coagulation yielded the lowest pain scores. Postprocedural bleeding was recorded in 46 studies involving 5696 patients and 14 treatments. Open haemorrhoidectomy had the greatest risk of postprocedural bleeding, followed by stapled haemorrhoidopexy and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Urinary retention was reported in 30 studies comparing 10 treatments involving 3116 participants. Open haemorrhoidectomy and stapled haemorrhoidopexy had significantly higher odds of urinary retention than rubber band ligation and DG-HAL with mucopexy. Nine studies reported bowel incontinence comparing five treatments involving 1269 participants. Open haemorrhoidectomy and stapled haemorrhoidopexy had the highest probability of bowel incontinence.

Conclusion

Open and closed haemorrhoidectomy, and stapled haemorrhoidopexy were associated with worse pain, and more postprocedural bleeding, urinary retention, and bowel incontinence, but had the lowest rates of symptom recurrence. The risks and benefits of each treatment should be discussed with patients before a decision is made.

Scoring systems as outcomes assessment of the treatments for haemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

The comparison between haemorrhoidal treatments is still unclear. Attempts have been made to adopt a unifying postoperative scoring system and thus ensure adequate comparison between clinical trials. We aimed to systematically review the available outcome scores of haemorrhoidal treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of science, Embase and Cochrane were searched from database implementation until the December 6th 2019. All studies describing or referencing a score to assess haemorrhoidal disease treatment were included. Likert scale alone, incontinence score alone, general assessment of quality of life or scores developed for other proctologic disorders were excluded. The main outcome measures were validation of the scores and correlation of the score items to the core outcome set for haemorrhoidal disease developed by the European Society of Coloproctology.

RESULTS

From the 633 records initially screened, 22 studies were included: 8 original articles describing a scoring system and 14 referencing a previously described scoring system. Only 1 score was validated by an external prospective cohort. All the scores evaluated the symptoms of haemorrhoidal disease. No score integrated the disease recurrences or patient's satisfaction. Scores values tended to decrease postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The scores described by Gerjy et al. and by Shanmugan et al. are available questionnaires, which have been validated and used in various studies. These scores might help researchers for comparative studies between treatment modalities and optimize haemorrhoids treatment.

Minimal Open Hemorrhoidectomy Versus Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization: The Effect on Symptoms: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the long-term efficacy of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization compared with hemorrhoidectomy. Most studies investigated short-term effects with postoperative pain as the primary outcome. Being a benign disease, the long-term goal of treatment for hemorrhoids is the resolution of symptoms and improvement of quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of minimal open hemorrhoidectomy versus transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization on patient-reported symptoms.

DESIGN

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

This was a single-center study.

PATIENTS

Patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids grade II to IV (Goligher's classification) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to minimal open hemorrhoidectomy or transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was symptoms assessed by the Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score 1 year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain and recovery, adverse events, recurrence, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients received minimal open hemorrhoidectomy, and 50 patients received transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. No difference in symptom score at 1-year follow-up was found. Median (range) symptom score was 3 (0-17) after minimal open hemorrhoidectomy and 5 (0-17) after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (median difference = -1.0 (95% CI, -3.0 to 0.0); p = 0.15). Residual hemorrhoidal prolapse was reported more frequently (p = 0.008), and more patients had treatment for recurrence after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (7 vs 0 patients; p = 0.013). Patient satisfaction was higher after minimal open hemorrhoidectomy (p = 0.049). No differences were found in the impact on health-related quality of life, average and peak postoperative pain, recovery, or adverse events (p > 0.05). Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization was more expensive (median difference = &OV0556;555 (95% CI, &OV0556;472-&OV0556;693); p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

No blinding was included in this study.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found in symptom score 1 year postoperatively. Minimal open hemorrhoidectomy had a better effect on the hemorrhoidal prolapse and higher patient satisfaction. More patients needed treatment for recurrence after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. Minimal open hemorrhoidectomy has an immediate postoperative course similar to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B152.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061176. HEMORROIDECTOMíA MíNIMA ABIERTA VERSUS DESARTERIALIZACIóN HEMORROIDAL TRANSANAL: EL EFECTO SOBRE LOS SíNTOMAS: UN ESTUDIO ABIERTO CONTROLADO Y ALEATORIZADO: Hay evidencia limitada sobre la eficacia a largo plazo de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal en comparación con la hemorroidectomía. La mayoría de los estudios han investigado los efectos a corto plazo con el dolor postoperatorio como el resultado primario. Al ser una enfermedad benigna, el objetivo a largo plazo del tratamiento de la enfermedad hemorroidal es la resolución de los síntomas y la mejora en la calidad de vida.Comparar el efecto de la hemorroidectomía abierta mínima versus la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal en los síntomas reportados por el paciente.Ensayo controlado aleatorizado abierto.Estudio en sede única.Pacientes con enfermedad hemorroidal sintomática de grado II-IV (clasificación de Goligher).Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a hemorroidectomía mínima abierta o desarterialización hemorroidal transanal.El resultado primario fueron los síntomas evaluados por el Score de Síntomas de Enfermedad Hemorroidal un año después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, satisfacción del paciente, dolor y recuperación postoperatorios, eventos adversos, recurrencia y costos hospitalarios.Cuarenta y ocho pacientes recibieron hemorroidectomía abierta mínima y cincuenta pacientes recibieron desarterialización hemorroidal transanal. No se encontraron diferencias en la puntuación de los síntomas al año de seguimiento. La puntuación mediana (rango) de síntomas fue 3 (0-17) después de una hemorroidectomía mínima abierta y 5 (0-17) después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (diferencia mediana [IC95%]: -1.0 [-3.0-0.0], p = 0.15). El prolapso hemorroidal residual se informó con mayor frecuencia (p = 0.008) y más pacientes recibieron tratamiento por recurrencia después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (7 frente a 0 pacientes, p = 0.013). La satisfacción del paciente fue mayor después de una hemorroidectomía abierta mínima (p = 0.049). No se encontraron diferencias en el impacto sobre la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, el dolor postoperatorio promedio y máximo, la recuperación o los eventos adversos (p> 0.05). La desarterialización hemorroidal transanal fue más costosa (diferencia mediana [IC95%]: &OV0556; 555 [472-693], p <0.001).Estudio sin cegamiento.No se encontraron diferencias en la puntuación de los síntomas a un año después de la operación. La hemorroidectomía mínima abierta tuvo un mejor efecto sobre el prolapso hemorroidal y una mayor satisfacción del paciente. Más pacientes necesitaron tratamiento para la recurrencia después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal. La hemorroidectomía abierta mínima tiene un curso postoperatorio inmediato similar a la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B152. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco).ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061176.

Cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy for hemorrhoids: Methods, feasibility and efficacy

AIM: To evaluate the methodology, feasibility, safety and efficacy of a novel method called cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy (CAES) for internal hemorrhoids.

METHODS: A pilot study on CAES for grade I to III internal hemorrhoids was performed. Colon and terminal ileum examination by colonoscopy was performed for all patients before starting CAES. Polypectomy and excision of anal papilla fibroma were performed if polyps or anal papilla fibroma were found and assessed to be suitable for resection under endoscopy. CAES was performed based on the requirement of the cap, endoscope, disposable endoscopic long injection needle, enough insufflated air and sclerosing agent.

RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with grade I to III internal hemorrhoids was included. The follow-up was more than four weeks. No bleeding was observed after CAES. One (3.33%) patient claimed mild tenesmus within four days after CAES in that an endoscopist performed this procedure for the first time. One hundred percent of patients were satisfied with this novel procedure, especially for those patients who underwent CAES in conjunction with polypectomy or excision of anal papilla fibroma.

CONCLUSION: CAES as a novel endoscopic sclerotherapy should be a convenient, safe and effective flexible endoscopic therapy for internal hemorrhoids.