Advertisement

Hemorrhoids pp 319-324 | Cite as

Main Advantages of Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy

  • Juan García-Armengol
  • José V. Roig
Reference work entry
Part of the Coloproctology book series (COLOPROCT, volume 2)

Abstract

It is rational to recommend a tailored surgery in the treatment of different grades of symptomatic hemorrhoids. For this reason, the colorectal surgeon needs to perform different procedures and to know very well the advantages and disadvantages of them.

Our aim is to review the main advantages of stapled hemorrhoidopexy during the short and long-term follow-up. We will compare these outcomes with traditional excisional surgery or conventional hemorrhoidectomy, and with the new procedures like transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy.

There is scientific evidence on the advantages of the stapled hemorrhoidopexy in terms of less postoperative pain and a shorter recovery time compared with excisional hemorrhoidectomy. The concern of significantly higher symptomatic recurrence in the long term after stapled hemorrhoidopexy would recommend a tailored indication of the different surgical procedures, independently or in association with stapled hemorrhoidopexy.

References

  1. Altomare DF, Pecorella G, Tegon G, Aquilino F, Pennisi D, De Fazio M (2016) Does a more extensive mucosal excision prevent haemorrhoidal recurrence after stapled haemorrhoidopexy? Long-term outcome of a randomised controlled trial. Colorectal Dis. Nov 1.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13549 (Epub ahead of print)
  2. Araujo SE, Horcel LA, Seid VE, Bertoncini AB, Klajner S (2016) Long term results after stapled hemorrhoidopexy alone and complemented by excisional hemorrhoidectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Arg Bras Cir Dig 29:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aytac E, Gorgun E, Erem HH, Abbas MA, Hull TL, Remzi FH (2015) Long-term outcomes after circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Tech Coloproctol 19:653–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, Woolacott NF (2009) Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 11:233–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Caviglia A, Del Grammastro A, Crocetta R, Straniero A, Giorgano E (2009) Feasibility of stapled haemorrhoidopexy in day surgery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 13:295–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Giuratrabochetta S, Pecorella G, Stazi A, Tegon G, De Fazio M, Altomare DF (2013) Safety and short-term effectiveness of EEA stapler vs PPH stapler in the treatment of degree III haemorrhoids: prospective randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 15:354–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Infantino A, Altomare DF, Bottini C, Bonanno M, Mancini S, THD group of the SICCR (Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery), Yalti T, Giamundo P, Hoch J, El Gaddal A, Pagano C (2012) Prospective randomized multicentre study comparing stapler haemorrhoidopexy with doppler-guided transanal haemorrhoid dearterialization for third-degree haemorrhoids. Colorectal Dis 14:205–211Google Scholar
  8. Lehur PA, Didnée AS, Faucheron JL, Meurette G, Zerbib P, Siproudhis L, Vinson-Bonnet B, Dubois A, Casa C, Hardouin JB, Durand-Zaleski I, LigaLongo Study Group (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 264:710–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Longo A (1998) Treatment of hemorrhoids 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. Monduzzi Editore, Bologna, pp 777–784Google Scholar
  10. Lucarelli P, Pichio M, Caporossi M, De Angelis F, Di Filippo A, Stipa F, Spaziani E (2013) Transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation with mucopexy versus stapler haemorrhoidopexy: a randomised trial with long-term follow-up. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95:246–251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Naldini G (2011) Serious unconventional complications os surgery with stapler for haemorrhoidal prolapse and obstructed defaecation because of rectocele and rectal intussusception. Colorectal Dis 13:323–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rivadeneira DE, Steele SR, Ternent C, Chlasani S, Buie WD, Rafferty JL, on behalf of the Standards Practice Task Force of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (2011) Practice parameters for the management of haemorrhoids (revised 2010). Dis Colon Rectum 54:1059–1064CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK (2007) Systematic review on the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (stapled hemorrhoidopexy). Dis Colon Rectum 50:1297–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Voigtsberger A, Popovicova L, Bauer G, Werner K, Weitschat-Benser T, Petersen S (2016) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy: functional results, recurrence rate, and prognostic factors in a single center analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:35–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A, Norrie J, Bruhn H, Cook JA, on behalf of the eTHoS study group (2016) Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388:2375–2385CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, Cornille JB, Fieuws S, D’Hoore A (2012) Recurrent symptoms after stapled haemorrhoidopexy and the impact on patient satisfaction after a mínimum of 2 years follow-up. Acta Chir Belg 112:419–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Centre of Colorectal Surgery, Coloproctology UnitHospital Nisa 9 de OctubreValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations