International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) versus stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) in treatment of internal hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

  • Sameh Hany EmileEmail author
  • Hossam Elfeki
  • Ahmad Sakr
  • Mostafa Shalaby



Although conventional hemorrhoidectomy proved effective in treatment of hemorrhoidal disease, postoperative pain remains a vexing problem. Alternatives to conventional hemorrhoidectomy as transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) and stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) were described. The present meta-analysis aimed to review the randomized trials that compared THD and SH to determine which technique is superior in terms of recurrence of hemorrhoids, complications, and postoperative pain.


Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared THD and SH for internal hemorrhoids. The PRISMA guidelines were followed when reporting this meta-analysis. The primary endpoint of the analysis was persistence or recurrence of hemorrhoidal disease. Secondary endpoints were postoperative pain, complications, readmission, return to work, and patients’ satisfaction.


Six randomized trials including 554 patients (THD = 280; SH = 274) were included. The mean postoperative pain score of THD was significantly lower than SH (2.9 ± 1.5 versus 3.3 ± 1.6). 13.2% of patients experienced persistent or recurrent hemorrhoids after THD versus 6.9% after SH (OR = 1.93, 95%CI = 1.07–3.51, p = 0.029). Complications were recorded in 17.1% of patients who underwent THD and 23.3% of patients who underwent SH (OR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.43–1.05, p = 0.08). The average duration to return to work after THD was 7.3 ± 5.2 versus 7.7 ± 4.8 days after SH (p = 0.34). Grade IV hemorrhoids was significantly associated with persistence or recurrence of hemorrhoidal disease after both procedures.


THD had significantly higher persistence/recurrence rate compared to SH whereas complication and readmission rates, hospital stay, return to work, and patients’ satisfaction were similar in both groups.


Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization Stapled hemorrhoidopexy Hemorrhoids Meta-analysis Randomized clinical trials 


Author contribution

Sameh Hany Emile designed the review. Sameh Hany Emile, Hossam Elfeki, Mostafa Shalaby, and Ahmad Sakr participated in data collection and analysis, writing, and drafting of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Thornton SC Hemorrhoids. Medscape. Available at Accessed online at May 23, 2018
  2. 2.
    American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement (2004) Diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoids. Gastroenterology 126(5):1461–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rivadeneira DE, Steele SR, Ternent C et al (2011) Practice parameters for the management of hemorrhoids (revised 2010). Dis Colon Rectum 54(9):1059–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hollingshead JR, Phillips RK (2016) Haemorrhoids: modern diagnosis and treatment. Postgrad Med J 92(1083):4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raahave D, Jepsen LV, Pedersen IK (2008) Primary and repeated stapled hemorrhoidopexy for prolapsing hemorrhoids: follow-up to five years. Dis Colon Rectum 51(3):334–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratto C, Parello A, Veronese E, Cudazzo E, D'Agostino E, Pagano C, Cavazzoni E, Brugnano L, Litta F (2015) Doppler-guided transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialization for haemorrhoids: results from a multicentre trial. Color Dis 17(1):O10–O19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scheyer M, Antonietti E, Rollinger G, Lancee S, Pokorny H (2015) Hemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) and rectoanal repair (RAR): retrospective analysis of 408 patients in a single center. Tech Coloproctol 19(1):5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Longo A (2002) Stapled anopexy and stapled hemorrhoidectomy: two opposite concepts and procedures. Dis Colon Rectum 45(4):571–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giordano P, Gravante G, Sorge R, Ovens L, Nastro P (2009) Long-term outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg 144(3):266–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sohn N, Aronoff JS, Cohen FS, Weinstein MA (2001) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization is an alternative to operative hemorrhoidectomy. Am J Surg 182(5):515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dal Monte PP, Tagariello C, Sarago M, Giordano P, Shafi A, Cudazzo E et al (2007) Transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation: nonexcisional surgery for the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease. Tech Coloproctol 11(4):333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    LaBella GD, Main WPL, Hussain LR (2015) Evaluation of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization: a single surgeon experience. Tech Coloproctol 19(3):153–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 Color Dis 24(12):1401–1405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(1):67–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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. Color Dis 14(2):205–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verre L, Rossi R, Gaggelli I, Di Bella C, Tirone A, Piccolomini A (2013) PPH versus THD: a comparison of two techniques for III and IV degree haemorrhoids. Personal experience. Minerva Chir 68(6):543–550Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Venturi M, Salamina G, Vergani C (2016) Stapled anopexy versus transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization for hemorrhoidal disease: a three-year follow-up from a randomized study. Minerva Chir 71(6):365–371Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giarratano G, Toscana E, Toscana C, Petrella G, Shalaby M, Sileri P (2018) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization versus stapled hemorrhoidopexy: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Surg Innov:1553350618761757.
  21. 21.
    Picchio M, Greco E, Di Filippo A, Marino G, Stipa F, Spaziani E (2015) Clinical outcome following hemorrhoid surgery: a narrative review. Indian J Surg 77(Suppl 3):1301–1307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siddiqui MR, Abraham-Igwe C, Shangumanandan A, Grassi V, Swift I, Abulafi AM (2011) A literature review on the role of chemical sphincterotomy after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. Int J Color Dis 26(6):685–692. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Emile SH, Youssef M, Elfeki H, Thabet W, El-Hamed TM, Farid M (2016) Literature review of the role of lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) when combined with excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Int J Color Dis 31(7):1261–1272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PH, Malthaner RA (2007) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy is associated with a higher long-term recurrence rate of internal hemorrhoids compared with conventional excisional hemorrhoid surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 50(9):1297–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu L, Chen H, Lin G, Ge Q, Qi H, He X (2016) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus open hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Tech Coloproctol 20(12):825–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cheetham MJ, Mortensen NJ, Nystrom P-O, Kamm MA, Phillips RK (2000) Persistent pain and faecal urgency after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 356(9231):730–733. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porrett LJ, Porrett JK, Ho YH (2015) Documented complications of staple hemorrhoidopexy: a systematic review. Int Surg 100(1):44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jongen J, Bock J (2000) Pain after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 356(9248):2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khubchandani I, Fealk MH, Reed JF 3rd (2009) Is there a post-PPH syndrome? Tech Coloproctol 13(2):141–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pescatori M, Gagliardi G (2008) Postoperative complications after procedure for prolapsed haemorrhoids (PPH) and stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) procedures. Tech Coloproctol 12(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin YH, Liu KW, Chen HP (2010) Haemorrhoidectomy: prevalence and risk factors of urine retention among post recipients. J Clin Nurs 19(19–20):2771–2776. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zaheer S, Reilly WT, Pemberton JH et al (1998) Urinary retention after operations for benign anorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 41:696–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Santis G, Gola P, Lancione L, Sista F, Pietroletti R, Leardi S (2012) Sigmoid intramural hematoma and hemoperitoneum: an early severe complication after stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Tech Coloproctol 16:315–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Cobellis L, Bottini C, Tessera G (2006) The rectal pocket syndrome after stapled mucosectomy. Color Dis 8(9):808–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    George R, Vivek S, Suprej K (2016) How long to stay in hospital: stapled versus open hemorrhoidectomy? Saudi Surg J 4:108–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thanh NX, Chuck AW, Wasylak T, Lawrence J, Faris P, Ljungqvist O, Nelson G, Gramlich LM (2016) An economic evaluation of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) multisite implementation program for colorectal surgery in Alberta. Can J Surg 59(6):415–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Laughlan K, Jayne DG, Jackson D, Rupprecht F, Ribaric G (2009) Stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared to Milligan Morgan and Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy: a systemic review. Int J Colorectal 24:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ganio E, Altomare DF, Milito G, Gabrielli F, Canuti S (2007) Long-term outcome of a multicentre randomized clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan Morgan haemorroidectomy. Br J Surg 94:1033–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General surgery, colorectal surgery unit, Mansoura Faculty of medicineMansoura University HospitalsMansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Department of surgeryAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.Colorectal surgery departmentYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations