Advertisement

Efficacy of Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy, in the short and long terms for patients with hemorrhoidal disease

  • C. Ferrandis
  • D. De Faucal
  • J.-M. Fabreguette
  • F. BorieEmail author
Original Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Several studies comparing Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation (DG HAL) with or without mucopexy with hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy techniques show no difference in short-term efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy of DG HAL with mucopexy (DG HAL+m) in the long term (beyond 5 years) for patients with hemorrhoidal disease.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with symptomatic hemorrhoidal disease of any stage treated with DG HAL m at our outpatient colorectal surgery unit in April 2009–April 2013. Patients were followed clinically for 1 month and with a questionnaire until 5 years after surgery or until they underwent a second surgery for recurrent hemorrhoids.

Results

Of 150 patients who underwent DG HALm during the study period 50 (33.3%) were lost to follow-up. A total of 100 patients (47 women, 53 men) were analysed. The average age was 50 (± 12) years. Twenty-six patients (17.3%) had had one or more prior procedures. The mean length of hospital stay was 2.2 days (median = 2 days; range = 1–8 days). No major complications were described. There were no deaths. At 5 years the mean bleeding, local discomfort and pain scores were significantly improved. Thirty-six patients (35.6%) had a recurrence during the follow-up period, and 20 (19.8%) of them underwent reoperation. The mean time between the operation and the second procedure was 36 months (median 27.4 months). The majority (61.4%) of patients were satisfied with the procedure.

Conclusions

Despite the low invasiveness of DG HALm the low morbidity associated with the procedure and the satisfactory functional outcomes, the long-term recurrence rate can be very high. However, only about half of the patients who experienced a recurrence needed a second operation.

Keywords

Efficacy Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation Hemorrhoidal disease 

Notes

Funding

There are no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Frederic Borie is THD workshop instructor, the other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This study was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Ethics of the institution in June 2009.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Loder PB, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ, Phillips RKS (1994) Haemorrhoids: pathology, pathophysiology and aetiology. Br J Surg 81:946–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morinaga K, Hasuda K, Ikeda T (1995) A novel therapy for internal hemorrhoids: ligation of the hemorrhoidal artery with a newly devised instrument (Moricorn) in conjunction with a doppler flowmeter. Am J Gastroenterol 90:610–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Béliard A, Labbé F, de Faucal D, Fabreguette JM, Pouderoux P, Borie F (2014) A prospective and comparative study between stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy. J Visc Surg 151:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thaha MA, Campbell KL, Kazmi SA, Irvine LA, Khalil A, Binnie NR, Hendry WS, Walker Staines HJ, Steele RJ (2009) Prospective randomised multi-centre trial comparing the clinical efficacy, safety and patient acceptability of circular stapled anopexy with closed diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Gut 58:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giordano P, Nastro P, Davies A, Gravante G (2011) Prospective evaluation of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation for stage II and III haemorrhoids: three-year outcomes. Tech Coloproctol 15:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denoya P, Tam J, Bergamaschi R (2014) Hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus hemorrhoidectomy: 3-year follow-up assessment of a randomized controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 18:1081–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zampieri N, Castellani R, Andreoli R, Geccherle A (2012) Long-term results and quality of life in patients treated with hemorrhoidectomy using two different techniques: ligasure versus transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. AJS 204:684–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abudeeb H, Ugwu A, Darabnia J et al (2017) THD and mucopexy: efficacy and controversy. Ann Med Surg 21:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trenti L, Biondo S, Galvez A, Bravo A, Cabrera J, Kreisler E (2017) Distal Doppler-guided transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade III and IV hemorrhoids: postoperative morbidity and long-term outcomes. Tech Coloproctol 21:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lehur PA, Didnée AS, Faucheron JL et al (2016) Cost-effectiveness of new surgical treatments for hemorrhoidal disease a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing transanal doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy and circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Ann Surg 264:710–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiredo MN, Campos FG (2016) Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal dearterialization/transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization: technical evolution and outcomes after 20 years. World J Gastrointest Surg 8:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faucheron JL, Poncet G, Voirin D, Badic B, Gangner Y (2011) Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation and rectoanal repair (HAL-RAR) for the treatment of grade IV hemorrhoids: long-term results in 100 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum 54:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elmér SE, Nygren JO, Lenander CE (2013) A randomized trial of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with anopexy compared with open hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 56:484–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giordano P, Tomasi I, Pascariello A, Mills E, Elahi S (2014) Transanal dearterialization with targeted mucopexy is effective for advanced haemorrhoids”. Colorectal Dis 16:373–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tiernan JP, Hind D, Brown SR (2013) Evaluating the efficacy of treatments for haemorrhoids: time for a standardized definition of recurrence? Colorectal Dis 15:1449–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ul Ain Q, Bashir Y, Eguare E (2018) Evaluation of the effectiveness and patients’ contentment with transanal haemorrhoidal artery dearterialisation and mucopexy (THD) for treatment of haemorrhoidal disease: a 6-year study. Ir J Med Sci 187:647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ratto C, Campennì P, Papeo F, Donisi L, Litta F, Parello A (2017) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) for hemorrhoidal disease: a single-center study on 1000 consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Tech Coloproctol 21:953–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dal Monte PP, Tagariello C, Giordano P et al (2007) Transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation: nonexcisional surgery for the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease. Tech Coloproctol 11:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ratto C, De Parades V (2015) Ligatures artérielles hémorroïdaires sous contrôle Doppler avec mucopexie: une technique d’ avenir [Doppler-guided ligation of hemorrhoidal arteries with mucopexy]. J Visc Surg 152:S15–S21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chirurgie DigestiveCHU CarémeauNîmesFrance
  2. 2.Department of HepatogastroenterolgyCHU CarémeauNîmesFrance

Personalised recommendations