Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment of Hemorrhoids in Day Surgery: Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy vs Milligan–Morgan Hemorrhoidectomy

  • ssat poster presentation
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Background

Recently, it has been demonstrated that surgical treatment of hemorrhoids in a day-care basis is possible and safe. The aim of this study was to compare the Longo stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) and the Milligan–Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (MMH).

Methods

One hundred seventy one patients (95 cases in SH group and 76 cases in MMH group) entered the study: 83 cases were III degree hemorrhoids, 88 IV degree. A priori and a post hoc power analysis were performed. Results, prospectively collected, were compared using chi squared test and student t test. Visual analog scale was used for pain evaluation. Postoperative pain, duration of pain, wound secretion, bleeding, resumption of a normal lifestyle, and postoperative complication were evaluated.

Results

Surgical time was 28.41 ± 10.78 for MMH and 28.30 ± 13.28 min in SH (P = 0.94). Postoperative pain was not different between MMH and SH during the first two postoperative days (4.73 ± 2.91 vs 5.1 ± 3.048; P = 0.4), during the following 6 days, patients treated with SH had less pain (4.63 ± 2.04 in MMH vs 3.60 ± 2.35 in SH; P = 0.006). In the SH group, seven patients needed further hospital stay for complicated course. SH showed higher incidence of anal fissure compared with MMH (6.3% vs 0%; P = 0.025) but no differences in urinary retention, anal stricture, urgency, or anal hemorrhage.

Conclusions

This study confirms that SH is associated with less postoperative pain and shorter postoperative symptoms, compared with MMH. SH may be a viable addition to the therapy for hemorrhoids with some advantages in early postoperative pain and some disadvantages in postoperative complications and costs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mehigan BJ, Monson JR, Hartley JE. Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan–Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000;355(9206):782–785. Mar 4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rowsell M, Bello M, Hemingway DM. Circumferential mucosectomy (stapled haemorrhoidectomy) versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000;355(9206):779–781. Mar 4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Boccasanta P, Capretti PG, Venturi M, Cioffi U, De Simone M, Salamina G, Contessini-Avesani E, Peracchia A. Randomised controlled trial between stapled circumferential mucosectomy and conventional circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse. Am J Surg 2001;182(1):64–68. Jul.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PH, Malthaner RA. Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids (Review). The Cochrane Collaboration Oct. 18; (4). New York: Wiley.

  5. Pescatori M. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy: a word of caution. Int J Colorectal Dis 2002;17(5):362–363. Sep.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheetham MJ, Mortensen NJ, Nystrom PO, Kamm MA, Phillips RK. Persistent pain and faecal urgency after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 2000;356(9231):730–733. Aug 26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Maw A, Kong-Weng E, Seow-Cohen F. Retroperitoneal sepsis complicating stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45(6):826–828. June.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ortiz H, Marzo J, Armendariz P, De Miguel M. Stapled haemorrhoidopexy vs diathermy excision for fourth- degree haemorrhoids: a randomized, clinical trial and review of the litterature. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:1837–1845.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gravie JF, Lehur PA, Huten N, Papillon M, Fantoli M, Descottes B, Pessaux P, Arnaud JP. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus milligan–morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with 2-year postoperative follow up. Ann Surg 2005;242(1):29–35. Jul.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Senagore AJ, Singer M, Abcarian H, Fleshman J, Corman M, Wexner S, Nivatvongs S. Procedure for Prolapse and Hemmorrhoids (PPH) Multicenter Study Group A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy and Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: perioperative and one-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47(11):1824–1836. Nov.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lan P, Wu X, Zhou X, Wang J, Zhang L. The safety and efficacy of stapled hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of ten randomized control trials. Int J Colorectal Dis 2006;21(2):172–178. Epub 2005 Jun 22 Mar.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Longo A. Treatment of hemorrhoids disease by reduction of mucosa and hemmoroidal prolapse with a circular suturing device: a new procedure. Proceedings of the 6th Wold Congress of Endoscopic Surgery. Monduzzi Editore. 1998;777–784.

  13. Milligan ETC, Morgan CN, Jones LE. Surgical anatomy of the anal canal and operative treatment of haemorrhoids. Lancet 1937;1:1119–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen J. Statitical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G*Power; Erdfelder, Faul and Buchner. Behaviour research methods, Intruments and Computers 1996 (Last improvement G*Power 3 2006)

  16. Stamos MJ. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10(5):627–628. May.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nisar PJ, Scholefield JH. Clinical review: managing haemorroids. BMJ 2003;327:845–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thaha MA, Irvine LA, Steele RJ, Campbell KL. Postdefaecation pain syndrome after circular stapled anopexy is abolished by oral nifedipine. Br J Surg 2005;92(2):208–210. Feb.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brusciano L, Ayabaca SM, Pescatori M, Accarpio GM, Dodi G, Cavallari F, Ravo B, Annibali R. Reinterventions after complicated or failed stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47(11):1846–1851. Nov.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Corman ML, Gravie JF, Hager T, Loudon MA, Mascagni D, Nystrom PO, Seow-Choen F, Abcarian H, Marcello P, Weiss E, Longo A. Stapled haemorrhoidopexy: a consensus position paper by an international working party—indications, contra-indications and technique. Colorectal Dis 2003;5(4):304–310. Jul.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ganio E, Altomare DF, Gabrielli F, Milito G, Canuti S. Prospective randomized multicentre trial comparing stapled with open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2001;88(5):669–674. May.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ho YH, Cheong WK, Tsang C, Ho J, Eu KW, Tang CL, Seow-Choen F. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy—cost and effectiveness. Randomized, controlled trial including incontinence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments at up to three months. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43(12):1666–1675. Dec.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Shalaby R, Desoky A. Randomized clinical trial of stapled versus Milligan–Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2001;88(8):1049–1053. Aug.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kairaluoma M, Nuorva K, Kellokumpu I. Day-case stapled (circular) vs. diathermy hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, controlled trial evaluating surgical and functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2003;46(1):93–99. Jan.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boccasanta P, Stuto A, Naldini G, Caviglia A, Carriero A. Opinions and facts on reinterventions after complicated or failed stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49(5):690–691. author reply 691–693. May.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Università Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Vito Maria Stolfi, Pierpaolo Sileri, Chiara Micossi, Isabella Carbonaro, Marco Venza, Paolo Gentileschi, Piero Rossi, Alessandro Falchetti & Achille Gaspari

  2. Department SEFeMEQ, Università Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

    Isabella Carbonaro

Authors
  1. Vito Maria Stolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierpaolo Sileri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chiara Micossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Isabella Carbonaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Venza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paolo Gentileschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Piero Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alessandro Falchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Achille Gaspari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vito Maria Stolfi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stolfi, V.M., Sileri, P., Micossi, C. et al. Treatment of Hemorrhoids in Day Surgery: Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy vs Milligan–Morgan Hemorrhoidectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12, 795–801 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0497-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0497-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation