Advertisement

Comparison of surgical procedures implemented in recent years for patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids: a network meta-analysis

  • Tiancong Du
  • Shijun Quan
  • Tao Dong
  • Qiang MengEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the complications and recurrence rates of the different surgical procedures implemented in recent years for the treatment of grade III and IV hemorrhoids using a network meta-analysis approach.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from January 2013 to August 2018, via PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data related to anal stenosis, fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids thrombosis, and recurrence rates were extracted from the included studies, which were selected based on associations with surgical procedures for grade III and IV hemorrhoids. A network meta-analysis was conducted by using the automated software Aggregate Data Drug Information System (ADDIS) 1.16.8 to evaluate and rank the safety and efficacy of the different surgical methods.

Results

Twenty-one studies with 2799 participants involving nine surgical procedures for grade III and IV hemorrhoids were ultimately analyzed. Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) and stapled hemorrhoidectomy (SH) exhibited fewer anal stenosis than open hemorrhoidectomy (OH) and Harmonic scalpel (Harmonic). SH presented the highest fecal incontinence rates. OH and Harmonic presented lower hemorrhoids thrombosis than SH and THD. Importantly, SH and THD exhibited the highest recurrence rates, when compared with the other hemorrhoidectomy surgical procedures.

Conclusions

In summary, THD and SH were found to be associated with more complications and higher recurrence rates. In addition, the use of OH treatments resulted in less hemorrhoids thrombosis rate but higher recurrence rate. The use of Harmonic resulted in higher anal stenosis rate but lower recurrence rate.

Keywords

Hemorrhoids Surgical procedures Network meta-analysis Randomized controlled trial 

Notes

Author contributions

All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Statement of human rights

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Kline RP (2015) Operative management of internal hemorrhoids. JAAPA 28:27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hollingshead JR, Phillips RK (2015) Haemorrhoids: modern diagnosis and treatment. Postgrad Med J 92:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsang YP, Fok KL, Cheung YS, Li KW, Tang CN (2014) Comparison of transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation and stapled haemorrhoidopexy in management of haemorrhoidal disease: a retrospective study and literature review. Tech Coloproctol 18:1017–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs DO (2018) Hemorrhoids: what are the options in 2018? Curr Opin Gastroenterol 34:46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guttenplan M (2017) The evaluation and office management of hemorrhoids for the gastroenterologist. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 19:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cocorullo G, Tutino R, Falco N, Licari L, Orlando G, Fontana T, Raspanti C, Salamone G, Scerrino G, Gallo G, Trompetto M, Gulotta G (2017) The non-surgical management for hemorrhoidal disease. A systematic review. G Chir 38:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abid KJ, Gul M, Amin MN, Saleem MT, Ishaque S (2015) Comparison between open and stapled haemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of 3rd and 4th degree haemorrhoids at surgical unit II Shalamar Hospital Lahore. Pak J Med Sci 9:1144–1147Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banov L Jr, Knoepp LF Jr, Erdman LH, Alia RT (1985) Management of hemorrhoidal disease. J S C Med Assoc 81:398–401Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song Y, Chen H, Yang F, Zeng Y, He Y, Huang H (2018) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization versus stapled hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids: a PRISMA-compliant updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Medicine 97:e11502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 20:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    He P, Chen H (2015) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of prolapsed hemorrhoids. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 18:1224–1230Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 102:1603–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 25:236–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim JH, Kim DH, Yong PL, Suh KW (2018) Long-term follow-up of Starion™ versus Harmonic Scalpel™ hemorrhoidectomy for grade III and IV hemorrhoids. Asian J Surg 42:367–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Kusanagi H (2017) A prospective randomized trial of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus ultrasonic scalpel hemorrhoidectomy for grade III hemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol 21:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Talha A, Bessa S, Abdel WM (2017) Ligasure, Harmonic Scalpel versus conventional diathermy in excisional haemorrhoidectomy: a randomized controlled trial. ANZ J Surg 87:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 71:365–371Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leardi S, Pessia B, Mascio M, Piccione F, Schietroma M, Pietroletti R (2016) Doppler-guided transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (DG-THD) versus stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) in the treatment of third-degree hemorrhoids: clinical results at short and long-term follow-up. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Titov AY, Abritsova MV, Mudrov AA (2016) Comparison of Doppler-assisted dearterialization with mucopexy and hemorrhoidectomy. Khirurgiia 2:24–32Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aigner F, Kronberger I, Oberwalder M, Loizides A, Ulmer H, Gruber L, Pratschke J, Peer S, Gruber H (2016) Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation with suture mucopexy compared with suture mucopexy alone for the treatment of grade III haemorrhoids: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Color Dis 18:710–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lim DR, Cho DH, Lee JH, Moon JH (2016) Comparison of a hemorrhoidectomy with ultrasonic scalpel versus a conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Ann Coloproctol 32:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahmood K, Asif K, Ashraf MN, Imran M (2016) Comparison of open vs closed haemorrhoidectomy in the management of haemorrhoids. Pak J Med Sci 10:1132–1134Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cariati A (2015) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan–Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a short-term follow-up on 640 consecutive patients. Eur Surg 47:112–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ripetti V, La VV, Greco S, Arullani A (2015) A randomized trial comparing stapled rectal mucosectomy versus open and semiclosed hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 58:1083–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bilgin Y, Hot S, Barlas İS, Akan A, Eryavuz Y (2015) Short- and long-term results of harmonic scalpel hemorrhoidectomy versus stapler hemorrhoidopexy in treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. Asian J Surg 38:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De NP, 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 57:348–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Irfan F, Salim M, Abid KJ (2014) Outcome of stapled haemorrhoidectomy versus open haemorrhoidectomy: a randomized control trial. Pak J Med Sci 8:491–495Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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 18:1081–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bulus H, Tas A, Coskun A, Kucukazman M (2014) Evaluation of two hemorrhoidectomy techniques: harmonic scalpel and Ferguson’s with electrocautery. Asian J Surg 37:20–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verre L, Rossi R, Gaggelli I, Di BC, Tirone A, Piccolomini A (2013) PPH versus THD: a comparison of two techniques for III and IV degree haemorrhoids. Personal experience. Minerva Chir 68:543–550Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim JS, Vashist YK, Thieltges S, Zehler O, Gawad KA, Yekebas EF, Izbicki JR, Kutup A (2013) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in circumferential third-degree hemorrhoids: long-term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1292–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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. Color Dis 15:1281–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 346:f2914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ferguson EF Jr (1988) Alternatives in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. South Med J 81:606–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morinaga K, Hasuda K, Fau - Ikeda T, Ikeda T (1995) A novel therapy for internal hemorrhoids: ligation of the hemorrhoidal artery with a newly devised instrument (Moricorn) in conjunction with a Doppler flowmeter. Am J Gastroenterol 90:610–613Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giordano P, Overton J, Madeddu F, Zaman S, Gravante G (2009) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1665–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gravié JF (2014) Hemorrhoidal arterial ligation with mucopexy: a risk-free technique? J Visc Surg 151:421–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang JY, Tsai HL, Chen FM, Chu KS, Chan HM, Huang CJ, Hsieh JS (2007) Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of Starion™ vs. Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1146–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Michalik M, Pawlak M, Bobowicz M, Witzling M (2014) Long-term outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 9:18–23Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ratto C, Giordano P, Donisi L, Parello A, Litta F, Doglietto GB (2011) Transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) for selected fourth-degree haemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol 15:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hosch SB, Knoefel WT, Pichlmeier U, Schulze V, Busch C, Gawad KA, Broelsch CE, Izbicki JR (1998) Surgical treatment of piles: prospective, randomized study of Parks vs. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 41:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morpheus IK (2012) Visual analogue scale. Pain Measurement & Assessment 4349Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF (2004) Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain 5:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Infantino A, Altomare DF, Bottini C, Bonanno M, Mancini S, 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 14:205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Haksal MC, Çiftci A, Tiryaki Ç, Yazıcıoğlu MB, Özyıldız M, Yıldız SY (2017) Comparison of the reliability and efficacy of LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and a conventional Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in the surgical treatment of grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoids. Turk J Surg 33:233–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tsunoda A, Kiyasu Y, Fujii W, Kano N (2015) Comparison of the early results of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and hemorrhoidectomy using an ultrasonic scalpel. Surg Today 45:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anorectal SurgeryPanjin Central HospitalPanjinChina
  2. 2.Department of Anorectal SurgeryThe First Hospital of China Medical UniversityShenyangChina

Personalised recommendations