Advertisement

Hemorrhoids pp 405-410 | Cite as

Main Advantages of Dearterialization of Hemorrhoids and Mucopexy

  • Vincent de Parades
  • Nadia Fathallah
  • François Pigot
  • Elise Crochet
  • Elise Pommaret
  • Alexia Boukris
  • Jean-David Zeitoun
  • Paul Benfredj
Reference work entry
Part of the Coloproctology book series (COLOPROCT, volume 2)

Abstract

Hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is a minimally invasive method of treating hemorrhoidal disease which is effective for reducing the symptoms of hemorrhoids and improving quality of life. Moreover, it has the obvious advantages of preservation of the anatomy and physiology of the anal canal, absence of external wounds, better tolerance, and a less painful postoperative period, especially compared with hemorrhoidectomy, but also probably compared with stapled hemorrhoidopexy. It is therefore usually provided on a day surgery basis and scores better in terms of general activity and ability to return to social and/or work activities. The procedure is also safe, with low postoperative morbidity and few complications, which are usually minor.

There is a probable higher long-term risk of recurrence of prolapse and/or bleeding after hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy, particularly in comparison with hemorrhoidectomy, but it is not a real problem in a time when patients often prefer a risk-free procedure and a short-term benefit to a potential long-term disadvantage.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

NF, AB, EC, JDZ, FP: none.

VdP, EP, PB: payment for travel to surgical meeting

References

  1. Atallah S, Maharaja GK, Martin-Perez B, Burke JP, Albert MR, Larach SW (2016) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD): a safe procedure for the anticoagulated patient? Tech Coloproctol 20:461–466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bursics A, Morvay K, Kupcsulik P, Flautner L (2004) Comparison of early and 1-year follow-up results of conventional hemorrhoidectomy and hemorrhoid artery ligation: a randomized study. Int J Colorectal Dis 19:176–180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell B (2013) Surgical aphorisms. Br J Surg 100:1673–1674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavazzoni E, Bugiantella W, Graziosi L, Silvia Franceschini M, Cantarella F, Rosati E, Donini A (2013) Emergency transanal haemorrhoidal Doppler guided dearterialization for acute and persistent haemorrhoidal bleeding. Colorectal Dis 15:e89–e92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. De Nardi P, Capretti G, Corsaro A, Staudacher C (2014) A prospective, randomized trial comparing the short- and long-term results of doppler-guided transanal hemorrhoid dearterialization with mucopexy versus excision hemorrhoidectomy for grade III hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 57:348–353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Denoya PI, Fakhoury M, Chang K, Fakhoury J, Bergamaschi R (2013) Dearterialization with mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy for grade III or IV haemorrhoids: short-term results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 15:1281–1288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 18:1081–1085CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 56:484–490CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Elshazly WG, Gazal AE, Madbouly K, Hussen A (2015) Ligation anopexy versus hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of second- and third-degree hemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol 19:29–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Festen S, van Hoogstraten MJ, van Geloven AA, Gerhards MF (2009) Treatment of grade III and IV haemorrhoidal disease with PPH or THD. A randomized trial on postoperative complications and short-term results. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:1401–1405CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 15:67–73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gravié JF (2014) Hemorrhoidal arterial ligation with mucopexy: a risk-free technique? J Visc Surg 151:421–422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Herold A (2012) Comment on Infantino et al. Colorectal Dis 14:212–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 14:205–211CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Karin E, Avital S, Dotan I, Skornick Y, Greenberg R (2012) Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation in patients with Crohn’s disease. Colorectal Dis 14:111–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Khafagy W, El Nakeeb A, Fouda E, Omar W, Elhak NG, Farid M, Elshobaky M (2009) Conventional haemorrhoidectomy, stapled haemorrhoidectomy, Doppler guided haemorrhoidectomy artery ligation; post operative pain and anorectal manometric assessment. Hepatogastroenterology 56:1010–1015PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 264:710–716CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Pescatori M, Gagliardi G (2008) Postoperative complications after procedure for prolapsed hemorrhoids (PPH) and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) procedures. Tech Coloproctol 12:7–19CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Ratto C, Parello A, Donisi L, Litta F, Doglietto GB (2011) Anorectal physiology is not changed following transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialization for haemorrhoidal disease: clinical, manometric and endosonographic features. Colorectal Dis 13:e243–e245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Simillis C, Thoukididou SN, Slesser AA, Rasheed S, Tan E, Tekkis PP (2015) Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes and effectiveness of surgical treatments for haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 102:1603–1618CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. Am J Surg 204:684–688CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent de Parades
    • 1
  • Nadia Fathallah
    • 1
  • François Pigot
    • 2
  • Elise Crochet
    • 1
  • Elise Pommaret
    • 1
  • Alexia Boukris
    • 1
  • Jean-David Zeitoun
    • 3
  • Paul Benfredj
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Proctologie Médico-Chirurgicale, Institut Léopold BellanGroupe Hospitalier Paris Saint-JosephParisFrance
  2. 2.Service de Proctologie Médico-ChirurgicaleHôpital BagatelleTalenceFrance
  3. 3.Service de Proctologie Médico-InstrumentaleCentre hospitalier Diaconesses – Croix Saint SimonParisFrance

Personalised recommendations