Pyogenic liver abscess after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy

Milligan-Morgan(M-M) hemorrhoidectomy is regarded as the primary treatment option for patients diagnosed with grade III or IV hemorrhoids. Here, we present the case of a 50-year-old male who developed pyogenic liver abscesses as an unusual complication following M-M hemorrhoidectomy. Severe complications subsequent to hemorrhoid surgery are infrequent. A review of the PubMed database spanning the 30-year period between 1994 and 2024 yielded only four publications documenting patients who experienced liver abscesses following open hemorrhoidectomy. Furthermore, the patient exhibited symptoms of a liver abscess as early as the second day post-surgery, despite having no history of diabetes or liver disease, making this occurrence truly uncommon.

Pyogenic liver abscess after open hemorrhoidectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical excision of hemorrhoids remains the gold standard for patients who have grade III or IV hemorrhoids. The complication rate is low and success rate is high. In this case, we describe a 44-year-old male with septic shock and small liver abscesses as a rare complication after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

In this case report, we describe the case of a patient with septic shock and small liver abscesses as a rare complication after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. A search in the PubMed database showed only three publications describing patients with liver abscesses after hemorrhoidectomy and some more cases after rubber band ligation.

RESULTS

The patient was admitted at the intensive care unit and received intravenous antibiotics. He could leave the hospital in good condition after 17 days. He received antibiotics for six weeks in total.

CONCLUSION

Pyogenic liver abscess after open hemorrhoidectomy is a rare complication after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation. Pyogenic liver abscesses can be treated with antibiotics, sometimes associated with percutaneous drainage or surgeryIn patients with predisposing factors prophylactic use of antibiotics could be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The HubBLe Trial: haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) versus rubber band ligation (RBL) for symptomatic second- and third-degree haemorrhoids: a multicentre randomised controlled trial and health-economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Optimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious.

OBJECTIVE

The comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids.

DESIGN

A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

PERSPECTIVE

UK NHS and Personal Social Services.

SETTING

17 NHS Trusts.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL.

INTERVENTIONS

HAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome - recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes - recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51; p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Blinding of participants and site staff was not possible.

FUTURE WORK

The incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A, et al. Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.