Guidelines, guidelines and more guidelines for haemorrhoid treatment: A review to sort the wheat from the chaff

Global treatment of haemorrhoids-A worldwide snapshot audit conducted by the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons

AIM

There is no universally accepted treatment consensus for haemorrhoids, and thus, management has been individualized all over the world. This study was conducted to assess a global view of how surgeons manage haemorrhoids.

METHODS

The research panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) developed a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire evaluating surgeons' experience, volume and treatment approaches to haemorrhoids. The 44 multiple-choice questionnaire was available for one month via the ISUCRS email database and the social media platforms Viber and WhatsApp.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 1005 surgeons from 103 countries; 931 (92.6%) were in active practice, 819 (81.5%) were between 30 and 60 years of age, and 822 (81.8%) were male. Detailed patient history (92.9%), perineal inspection (91.2%), and digital rectal examination (91.1%) were the most common assessment methods. For internal haemorrhoids, 924 (91.9%) of participants graded them I-IV, with the degree of haemorrhoids being the most important factor considered to determine the treatment approach (76.3%). The most common nonprocedural/conservative treatment consisted of increased daily fibre intake (86.9%), increased water intake (82.7%), and normalization of bowel habits/toilet training (74.4%). Conservative treatment was the first-line treatment for symptomatic first (92.5%), second (72.4%) and third (47.3%) degree haemorrhoids; however, surgery was the first-line treatment for symptomatic fourth degree haemorrhoids (77.6%). Rubber band ligation was the second-line treatment in first (50.7%) and second (47.2%) degree haemorrhoids, whereas surgery was the second-line treatment in third (82.9%) and fourth (16.7%) degree symptomatic haemorrhoids. Rubber band ligation was performed in the office by 645(64.2%) of the participants. The most common surgical procedure performed for haemorrhoids was an excisional haemorrhoidectomy for both internal (87.1%) and external (89.7%) haemorrhoids - with 716 (71.2%) of participants removing 1, 2 or 3 sectors as necessary.

CONCLUSION

Although there is no global haemorrhoidal treatment consensus, there are many practice similarities among the different cultures, resources, volume and experience of surgeons around the world. With additional studies, a consensus statement could potentially be developed.

The role of the Rafaelo procedure in the management of hemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to summarize the current evidence regarding the role of the Rafaelo procedure in the management of hemorrhoidal disease (HD).

METHODS

This study was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was performed (Medline, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) from inception to 25/09/2022. Grey literature databases were also reviewed. The primary endpoint was the pooled complications rate of the Rafaelo procedure in patients with HD. Secondary endpoints included short- (bleeding, pain, thrombosis, necrosis, urinary retention, fever, oedema, anal fissure, and readmission) and long-term (stenosis, meteorism, constipation, anal tags, anal hyposensibility, reoperation, and recurrence) postoperative complication rates. Both prospective and retrospective studies were considered. Quality evaluation was performed via the ROBINS-I tool. Certainty of Evidence was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, 6 non-randomized studies and 327 patients were included. The overall complication rate was 17.6% (95% CI 8.8-26.3%). Short-term complications were bleeding (7.5%, 95% CI 2.5-12.5%), thrombosis (2.2%, 95% CI 0.4-4.8%), and pain (1.6%, 95% CI 0.2-3.3%). Reoperation and recurrence rates were 1.8% (95% CI 0.3-3.4%) and 4.8% (95% CI 1.2-8.4%), respectively. A significant improvement in the presenting symptoms was noted. Method approval and patient satisfaction rates were 89.1% (95% CI 81.7-96.6%) and 95% (95% CI 89.8-100%), correspondingly. Overall CoE was "Very Low".

CONCLUSIONS

Further randomized controlled trials are required to delineate the exact role of the Rafaelo procedure in HD.