Abstract
Background
Circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) is an effective technique for treating prolapsing hemorrhoids; but urgency and anal stenosis are common postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and postoperative outcomes of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH), compared with CSH.
Methods
Seventy-two consecutive patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were divided in a non-randomized manner to undergo either PSH (n = 34) or CSH (n = 38). Intraoperative and postoperative parameters in both groups were collected and compared.
Results
The postoperative visual analog score for pain at first defecation was significantly lower in the PSH group than that in the CSH group (P = 0.001). Fewer patients in the PSH group experienced postoperative urgency, compared with those in the CSH group at 12 h, 1 day, and 7 days after surgery (P = 0.025, P = 0.019, and P = 0.043, respectively). Gas incontinence occurred in 3 patients (7.9%) in the CSH group, but in none of patients in the PSH group (P = 0.242). Postoperative anal stenosis developed in one patient (2.6%) in the CSH group, but in none of the patients in the PSH group (P = 1.0). The 2-year recurrence rate was 2.9 and 5.3%, respectively, in the PSH and CSH groups (P = 1.0).
Conclusions
The 2-year recurrence rate is similar in patients with grade III–IV hemorrhoids treated with PSH or CSH. However, PSH is associated with less postoperative pain, fewer episodes of urgency, and no anal incontinence or anal stenosis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bleday R, Pena JP, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM, Buls JG (1992) Symptomatic hemorrhoids: current incidence and complications of operative surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 35:477–481
Wolff BG, Culp CE (1988) The Whitehead hemorrhoidectomy. An unjustly maligned procedure. Dis Colon Rectum 31:587–590
Ommer A, Wenger FA, Rolfs T, Walz MK (2008) Continence disorders after anal surgery—a relevant problem? Int J Colorectal Dis 23:1023–1031
Arbman G, Krook H, Haapaniemi S (2000) Closed vs. open hemorrhoidectomy—is there any difference? Dis Colon Rectum 43:31–34
Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M, Leong AF (1997) Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 84:1729–1730
Longo A (1998) Treatment of hemorrhoidal disease by reduction of mucosa and hemorrhoidal prolapse with a circular suturing device: a new procedure. In: Proceedings of the 6th world congress of endoscopic surgery. Bologna: Monduzzi Editore, pp 777–784
Shao WJ, Li GC, Zhang ZH, Yang BL, Sun GD, Chen YQ (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 95:147–160
Laughlan K, Jayne DG, Jackson D, Rupprecht F, Ribaric G (2009) Stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared to Milligan-Morgan and Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:335–344
Fueglistaler P, Guenin MO, Montali I et al (2007) Long-term results after stapled hemorrhoidopexy: high patient satisfaction despite frequent postoperative symptoms. Dis Colon Rectum 50:204–212
Brisinda G, Vanella S, Cadeddu F et al (2009) Surgical treatment of anal stenosis. World J Gastroenterol 15:1921–1928
Goligher JC (1980) Surgery of the anus rectum and colon, 4th edn. Bailliere, Tindall, London, pp 93–149
Z’graggen K, Maurer CA, Birrer S, Giachino D, Kern B, Büchler MW (2001) A new surgical concept for rectal replacement after low anterior resection. Ann Surg 234:780–787
Katdare MV, Ricciardi R (2010) Anal stenosis. Surg Clin North Am 90:137–145
Ortiz H, Marzo J, Armendariz P (2002) Randomized clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus conventional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 89:1376–1381
Naldini G, Martellucci J, Talento P, Caviglia A, Moraldi L, Rossi M (2009) New approach to large haemorrhoidal prolapse: double stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:1383–1387
Petersen S, Jongen J, Schwenk W (2011) Agraffectomy after low rectal stapling procedures for hemorrhoids and rectocele. Tech Coloproctol 15:259–264
Gao XH, Fu CG, Nabieu PF (2010) Residual skin tags following procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids: differentiation from recurrence. World J Surg 34:344–352
Gerjy R, Nyström PO (2007) Excision of residual skin tags during stapled anopexy does not increase postoperative pain. Colorectal Dis 9:754–757
Gravié JF, Lehur PA, Huten N et al (2005) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with 2-year postoperative follow up. Ann Surg 242:29–35
Mlakar B, Kosorok P (2003) Complications and results after stapled haemorrhoidopexy as a day surgical procedure. Tech Coloproctol 7:164–168
Ruhl A, Thewissen M, Ross HG, Cleveland S, Frieling T, Enck P (1998) Discharge patterns of intramural mechanoreceptive afferents during selective distension of the cat’s rectum. Neurogastroenterol Motil 10:219–225
Yao LQ, Zhong YS, Xu JM et al (2006) Rectal stenosis following procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 44:897–899
Brisinda G (2000) How to treat haemorrhoids. Prevention is best; haemorrhoidectomy needs skilled operators. BMJ 321:582–583
Conflict of interest
None of the authors declares any conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, HC., Ren, DL., He, QL. et al. Partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy for grade III–IV prolapsing hemorrhoids: a two-year prospective controlled study. Tech Coloproctol 16, 337–343 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0815-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0815-8