Can the procedure for prolapsing hemorrhoids (PPH) be done twice? Results of a porcine model

  • O. Zmora
  • P. Colquhoun
  • S. Abramson
  • E. G. Weiss
  • J. Efron
  • A. M. VernavaIII
  • J. J. Nogueras
  • S. D. WexnerEmail author
Original article


Background: The procedure for prolapsing hemorrhoids (PPH) is a new surgical method for the treatment of symptomatic hemorrhoids. In cases of recurrent prolapse, the performance of a second PPH may result in a ring of mucosa and submucosa between the two circular staple lines. In this study, we used a porcine model to assess whether PPH can be safely performed twice. Methods: Five adult pigs underwent two PPH procedures in one session, leaving a ring of ~1 cm of mucosa between the two staple lines. One month later, the pigs were examined under anesthesia. The anal canal was assessed using the following four methods: (a) clinical examination, (b) evaluation of mucosal blood perfusion at different levels of the anal canal via a laser Doppler flow detector, (c) measurement of concentrations of hydroxyproline and collagen to check for fibrosis, and (d) histopathological examination. Results: At the completion of the study period, all five pigs showed no clinical evidence of anorectal dysfunction. On examination under anesthesia 1 month after surgery, there was no evidence of anal stenosis in any of the pigs. The mean mucosal blood flow between the two staple lines did not differ significantly from the flow measured proximally and distally (394 vs 363 and 339 flow units, respectively; p = NS). The collagen levels, based on hydroxyproline concentration, were 81 mcg/mg between the staple lines, compared to 82 and 79 proximally and distally, respectively (p = NS). There was no significant difference in degree of fibrosis, as assessed histopathologically, between specimens taken from the ring between the staple lines and specimens taken from the area external to the staple lines. Conclusions: The results of this porcine model suggest that a second synchronous PPH is feasible. A controlled experience involving human subjects is required to determine the safety and usefulness of this technique in cases of metachronous application for recurrent or residual hemorrhoids.


Hemorrhoids Prolapse Recurrence Surgical treatment Animal model 



This work was supported by Ethicon Endo-Surgery (Cincinnati, OH, USA).


  1. 1.
    Altomare, DF, Rinaldi, M, Sallustio, PL, Martino, P, De Fazio, M, Memeo, V 2001Long-term effects of stapled haemorrhoidectomy on internal anal function and sensitivity.Br J Surg8814871491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arbman, G, Krook, H, Haapaniemi, S 2000Closed vs. open hemorrhoidectomy—is there any difference?Dis Colon Rectum433134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnaud, JP, Pessaux, P, Huten, N,  et al. 2001Treatment of hemorrhoids with circular stapler, a new alternative to conventional methods: a prospective study of 140 patients.J Am Coll Surg193161165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beattie, GC, Loudon, MA 2001Follow-up confirms sustained benefit of circumferential stapled anoplasty in the management of prolapsing haemorrhoids.Br J Surg88850852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, DE 1998Hemorrhoidal disease.Beck, DEWexner, SD eds. Fundamentals of anorectal surgery.WB SaundersLondon237253Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boccasanta, P, Capretti, PG, Venturi, M,  et al. 2001Randomized controlled trial between stapled circumferential mucosectomy and conventional circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse.Am J Surg1826468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheetham, MJ, Mortensen, NJ, Nystrom, PO, Kamm, MA, Phillips, RK 2000Persistent pain and faecal urgency after stapled haemorrhoidectomy.Lancet356730733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganio, E, Altomare, DF, Gabrielli, F, Milito, G, Canuti, S 2001Prospective randomized multicentre trial comparing stapled with open haemorrhoidectomy.Br J Surg88669674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho, YH, Cheong, WK, Tsang, C,  et al. 2000Stapled hemorrhoidectomy—cost and effectiveness. Randomized, controlled trial including incontinence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments at up to three months.Dis Colon Rectum4316661675Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibrahim, S, Tsang, C, Lee, YL, Eu, KW, Seow-Choen, F 1998Prospective, randomized trial comparing pain and complications between diathermy and scissors for closed hemorrhoidectomy.Dis Colon Rectum4114181420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khalil, KH, O’Bichere, A, Sellu, D 2000Randomized clinical trial of sutured versus stapled closed haemorrhoidectomy.Br J Surg8713521355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Konsten, J, Baeten, CG 2000Hemorrhoidectomy vs. Lord’s method: 17-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial.Dis Colon Rectum43503506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Longo A (1998) Treatment of hemorrhoids disease by reduction of mucosa and hemorrhoidal prolapse with circular suture device: a new procedure. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Rome, Italy, 3–6, JuneGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehigan, BJ, Monson, JR, Hartley, JE 2000Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial.Lancet355782785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millito G, Correse F, Casciani CU (1998) Surgical treatment of mucosal prolapse and hemorrhoids by stapler. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Rome, Italy, 3–6 JuneGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mortensen, PE, Olsen, J, Pedersen, IK, Christiansen, J 1987A randomized study on hemorrhoidectomy combined with anal dilatation.Dis Colon Rectum30755757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pernice, LM, Bartalucci, B, Bencini, L, Borri, A, Catarzi, S, Kroning, K 2001Early and late (ten years) experience with circular stapler hemorrhoidectomy.Dis Colon Rectum44836841PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rowsell, M, Bello, M, Hemingway, DM 2000Circumferential mucosectomy (stapled haemorrhoidectomy) versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial.Lancet355779781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savioz, D, Roche, B, Glauser, T, Dobrinov, A, Ludwig, C, Marti, MC 1998Rubber band ligation of hemorrhoids: relapse as a function of time.Int J Colorectal Dis13154156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shalaby, R, Desoky, A 2001Randomized clinical trial of stapled versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy.Br J Surg8810491053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sharif, HI, Lee, L, Alexander-Williams, J 1991Diathermy haemorrhoidectomy.Int J Colorectal Dis6217219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singer, M, Chaudhry, V, Cintron, J,  et al. 2001Early experience with stapled hemorrhoidectomy in the United States.Dis Colon Rectum44A7Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stegemann, H, Stadler, K 1967Determination of hydroxyproline.Clin Chim Acta18267273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wexner, SD, Baig, K 2001The evaluation and physiologic assessment of hemorrhoidal disease: a review.Tech Coloproc5165168Check journal abbrevCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wexner, SD 2001The quest for painless surgical treatment of hemorrhoids continues.J Am Coll Surg193174178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Zmora
    • 1
  • P. Colquhoun
    • 1
  • S. Abramson
    • 2
  • E. G. Weiss
    • 1
  • J. Efron
    • 1
  • A. M. VernavaIII
    • 1
  • J. J. Nogueras
    • 1
  • S. D. Wexner
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Boulevard, Weston, FL 33331USA
  2. 2.Basic Research LaboratoryCleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Boulevard, Weston, FL 33331USA

Personalised recommendations