Applied Evidence

A new treatment option for grades III and IV hemorrhoids

J Fam Pract. 2004 October;53(10):799-804

References

1. Helton WS. for The SSAT, AGA, ASGE Consensus Panel 2001 consensus statement on benign anorectal disease. J Gastrointestinal Surg. 2002;6:302-303.

2. Bailey HR. Innovations for age-old problem: hemorrhoids in the female patient. Female Patient. 2004;29:17-23.

3. Haas PA, Fox TA, Jr, Haas GP. The pathogenesis of hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984;27:442-450.

4. Hancock BD. Internal sphincter and the nature of haemorrhoids. Gut. 1977;18:651-655.

5. Pfenninger J, Zainea G. Common anorectal conditions: Part I. Symptoms and complaints. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63:2391-2398.

6. Bleday R, Pena JP, Rothenberger DA, et al. Symptomatic hemorrhoids: current incidence and complications of operative therapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35:477-481.

7. Wauters H, Van Casteren V, Buntinx F. Rectal bleeding and colorectal cancer in general practice: diagnostic study. BMJ. 2000;321:998-999.

8. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54:41-52.

9. Quevedo-Bonilla G, Farkas AM, Abcarian H, et al. Septic complications of haemorrhoidal banding. Arch Surg. 1988;123:650-651.

10. Scarpa FJ, Hillis W, Sabetta JR. Pelvic cellulitis: a life-threatening complication of hemorrhoidal banding. Surgery. 1988;103:383-385.

11. Hetzer FH, Demartines N, Handschin AE, Clavien PA. Stapled vs excision hemorrhoidectomy: long-term results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2002;137:337-340.

12. Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Sallustio PL, et al. Long-term effects of stapled haemorrhoidectomy on internal anal function and sensitivity. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1487-1491.

13. Read MG, Read NW, Haynes WG, et al. A prospective study of the effect of haemorrhoidectomy on sphincter function and faecal continence. Br J Surg. 1982;69:396-398.

14. Singer MA, Cintron JR, Fleshman JW, et al. Early experience with stapled hemorrhoidectomy in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:360-367.

15. Dixon MR, Stamos MJ, Grant SR, et al. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy: a review of our early experience. Am Surg. 2003;69:862-865.

16. Hoffman GH, Firoozmand E. Hemorrhoids—To staple or not to staple: that is the question. Surg Rounds. 2004;27:213-224.

17. Guy RJ, Seow-Choen F. Septic complications after treatment of haemorrhoids. Br J Surg. 2003;90:147-156.

18. Molloy RG, Kingsmore D. Life threatening pelvic sepsis after stapled haemorrhoidectomy [letter]. Lancet. 2000;355:810.-

19. Peng BC, Jayne DG, Ho YH. Randomized trial of rubber band ligation vs. stapled hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed piles. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:291-297.

20. Komborozos VA, Skrekas GJ, Pissiotis CA. Rubber band ligation of symptomatic internal hemorrhoids: results of 500 cases. Dig Surg. 2000;17:71-76.

21. Mehigan BJ, Monson JRT, Hartley JE. Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;355:782-785.

22. Rowsell M, Bello M, Hemingway DM. Circumferential mucosectomy (stapled haemorrhoidectomy) versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;355:779-781.

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

24. Ganio E, Altomare DF, Gabrielli F, et al. Prospective randomized multicentre trial comparing stapled with open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 2001;88:669-674.

25. Williams NS, Patel J, George BD, et al. Development of an electrically stimulated neoanal sphincter. Lancet. 1991;338:1166-1169.

26. Palimento D, Picchio M, Attanasio U, et al. Stapled and open hemorrhoidectomy: randomized controlled trial of early results. World J Surg. 2003;27:203-207.

27. Racalbuto A, Aliotta I, Corsaro G, et al. Hemorrhoidal stapler prolapsectomy vs. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a long-term randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2004;19:239-244.

In another study, Palimento and colleagues used several methods to evaluate postoperative pain in a group of 74 patients randomized either to PPH or open hemorrhoidectomy.²⁶ Patients were encouraged to ask freely for pain relief, and the amounts of analgesic consumed were recorded. A visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable) was completed by each patient at 4 and 24 hours following surgery. The researchers also requested a VAS score to evaluate pain at first defecation. In addition, patients were asked to record when they were able to have completely pain-free bowel movements and when there was pain-free return to normal activities and work. Analgesia requirements were similar between the 2 groups. Median VAS scores in the PPH group were significantly lower than in the open-hemorrhoidectomy group at 4 and 24 hours postoperatively and after first defecation (TABLE 2).

No statistically significant difference between the groups was found for incidence of postoperative bleeding. Nor did the groups differ regarding return to normal activities or return to work. However, the investigators noted that many factors affect the latter 2 outcome measures, including a patient’s motivation and his/her insurance coverage for disability, making comparisons somewhat unreliable. Hence, time to resumption of pain-free defecation was evaluated as a more objective measure and was found to be significantly less in the stapled group (10 vs 12 days, P=.001). At long-term follow-up (median, 17.5 months; range, 10–27 months), occasional pain was reported by 6 (16.2%) of the 37 patients in the PPH group and by 7 (18.9%) of the 37 patients in the open-hemorrhoidectomy group (P=1.000).

Racalbuto and colleagues performed a long-term randomized trial comparing results for 50 patients who underwent PPH with another 50 who underwent Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.²⁷ Patients were followed over a period of 48 months. Once again, patients who underwent PPH experienced significantly less pain and therefore were able to return to activities much more quickly than those who underwent conventional hemorrhoidectomy (8.04 ± 1.37 days vs 16.9 ± 2.50 days, P<.0001). In the long-term follow-up evaluation, none of the patients in either treatment group experienced stenosis. In addition, when comparing the 2 groups with respect to anal incontinence and recurrence of prolapse, the investigators did not find any significant differences.

TABLE 1

Mean Pain Scores for PPH vs Milligan-Morgan Hemorrhoidectomy

	PPH Mean (SD)	Milligan-Morgan Mean (SD)	P Value
First 24 hours	2.5 (1.3)	7.6 (0.7)	<.001
First bowel movement	1.1 (0.3)	6.6 (1.2)	<.001
1 week after operation	0.4 (0.7)	2.6 (0.6)	<.001
PPH = procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids; SD = standard deviation.
Adapted from Shalaby and Desoky.²³

TABLE 2

Median Pain Scores for PPH vs Open Hemorrhoidectomy

	PPH Median (range)	Open Hemorrhoidectomy Median (range)	P Value
4 hours after operation	4 (2–6)	5 (2–8)	.001
24 hours after operation	3 (1–6)	5 (3–7)	.000
First defecation	5 (3–8)	7 (3–9)	.000
PPH = procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids.
Data from Palimento et al.²⁶

Contraindications to PPH

Contraindications to PPH include anal stenosis, that is, an anal canal that does not allow the stapler to be inserted. The PPH procedure also should be avoided in patients with an anorectal abscess, a complex fistula in ano, and perianal Crohn’s disease. As with any other type of surgery, patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy must be carefully evaluated.

Conclusion

The stapling technique is the newest treatment option for grades III and IV hemorrhoids. Although more randomized trials are needed, it appears from the research thus far that PPH is effective, with the potential to involve less pain and a shorter recovery time than conventional hemorrhoidectomy.

Disclosures

Dr Parker serves as a consultant to Ethicon Endo-Surgery. This supplement is supported by a grant from Ethicon Endo-Surgery.