Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thornton SC Hemorrhoids. Medscape. Available at https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/775407-overview. Accessed online at May 23, 2018

  2. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement (2004) Diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoids. Gastroenterology 126(5):1461–1462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rivadeneira DE, Steele SR, Ternent C et al (2011) Practice parameters for the management of hemorrhoids (revised 2010). Dis Colon Rectum 54(9):1059–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hollingshead JR, Phillips RK (2016) Haemorrhoids: modern diagnosis and treatment. Postgrad Med J 92(1083):4–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):334–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–O19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):5–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Longo A (2002) Stapled anopexy and stapled hemorrhoidectomy: two opposite concepts and procedures. Dis Colon Rectum 45(4):571–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2008.591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sohn N, Aronoff JS, Cohen FS, Weinstein MA (2001) Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization is an alternative to operative hemorrhoidectomy. Am J Surg 182(5):515–519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):333–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. LaBella GD, Main WPL, Hussain LR (2015) Evaluation of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization: a single surgeon experience. Tech Coloproctol 19(3):153–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1269-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0803-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-010-0667-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02628.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):543–550

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):365–371

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350618761757.

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-014-1087-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1121-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2603-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1297–1305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):825–833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02632-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Porrett LJ, Porrett JK, Ho YH (2015) Documented complications of staple hemorrhoidopexy: a systematic review. Int Surg 100(1):44–57

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jongen J, Bock J (2000) Pain after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 356(9248):2187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Khubchandani I, Fealk MH, Reed JF 3rd (2009) Is there a post-PPH syndrome? Tech Coloproctol 13(2):141–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):7–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03178.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zaheer S, Reilly WT, Pemberton JH et al (1998) Urinary retention after operations for benign anorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 41:696–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 16:315–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pescatori M, Spyrou M, Cobellis L, Bottini C, Tessera G (2006) The rectal pocket syndrome after stapled mucosectomy. Color Dis 8(9):808–811

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. George R, Vivek S, Suprej K (2016) How long to stay in hospital: stapled versus open hemorrhoidectomy? Saudi Surg J 4:108–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.006716

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 24:335–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 94:1033–1037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General surgery, colorectal surgery unit, Mansoura Faculty of medicine, Mansoura University Hospitals, Elgomhuoria Street, Mansoura, Egypt

    Sameh Hany Emile, Hossam Elfeki, Ahmad Sakr & Mostafa Shalaby

  2. Department of surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

    Hossam Elfeki

  3. Colorectal surgery department, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Ahmad Sakr

Authors
  1. Sameh Hany Emile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossam Elfeki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmad Sakr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mostafa Shalaby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sameh Hany Emile.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Emile, S.H., Elfeki, H., Sakr, A. et al. Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) versus stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH) in treatment of internal hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Colorectal Dis 34, 1–11 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-3187-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-3187-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation