Open versus closed day-case haemorrhoidectomy: is there any difference? Results of a prospective randomised study

Omission of perioperative morphine reduces postoperative pain in proctological interventions: a single-center analysis

There is an increase in outpatient procedures and this trend will continue in the future. For hemorrhoidectomy, it is the standard of treatment in many health care systems. Perioperative management including adequate pain control is of paramount importance to ensure successful ambulatory surgery. This study investigates the role and effect of morphine compared to short-acting opiates applied before, during, or after proctological interventions and with focus on hemorrhoidectomy. A retrospective analysis of a prospective database was conducted comparing two populations. The control cohort received morphine (Yes-Mô) intra- and postoperatively, while the intervention group did not receive morphine (No-Mô) between January 2018 and January 2020. Both cohorts were balanced by propensity score matching. The outcomes were postoperative pain measured by numeric ratings scale (NRS) one hour postoperatively, pain 24 h postoperatively, success rate of outpatient management, and complication rate including postoperative nausea and vomiting as well as urinary retention. The intervention population comprised 54 patients and the control group contained 79 patients. One hour after surgery, patients in No-Mô reported lower NRS (1.44 ± 1.41) compared to Yes-Mô (2.48 ± 2.30) (p = 0.029). However, there was no difference in NRS 24 h postoperatively (No-Mô: 1.61 ± 1.41 vs Yes-Mô: 1.63 ± 1.72; p = 0.738). 100% of No-Mô was managed as outpatients while only 50% of Yes-Mô was dismissed on the day of the operation (p = < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative complications (including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and urinary retention) between the two groups (PONV No-Mô 7.4% vs Yes-Mô 5.6%, p = 1.0 and urinary retention No-Mô 3.7% vs Yes-Mô 7.4%, p = 0.679). No-Mô received an oral morphine equivalent of 227.25 ± 140.35 mg intraoperatively and 11.02 ± 18.02 mg postoperatively. Yes-Mô received 263.17 ± 153.60 mg intraoperatively and 15.97 ± 14.17 mg postoperatively. The difference in received morphine equivalent between the groups was not significant after matching for the intraoperative (p = 0.212) and postoperative (p = 0.119) received equivalent. Omission of perioperative morphine is a viable but yet not understood method for reducing postoperative pain. Omission of morphine leads to a lower use of total morphine equivalent to attain satisfactory analgesia. The reduction of the overall opiate load and using opiates with a very short half-life potentially leads to a reduction of side effects like sedation. This in turn promotes discharge of the patient on the day of surgery. Omission of morphine is safe and does not increase postoperative complications.

Ten-year multicentric retrospective analysis regarding postoperative complications and impact of comorbidities in hemorrhoidal surgery with literature review

BACKGROUND

Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is considered a low-severity pathology by both general population and physicians, but the lengthy conservative therapy and postoperative complications suggest otherwise.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of different treatment options, both conservative and surgical, in contrast with some preexisting comorbidities.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, 10-yearlong study between January 2011 and December 2021 in two surgical centers, a private and a state-owned hospital. We compared the efficacy and safety of several treatment options, such as open hemorrhoidectomy, stapled hemorrhoidopexy, rubber band ligation and infrared coagulation in terms of complication rates and types and their correlation with different preexisting comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), use of anticoagulant medication (AM) and liver cirrhosis. We also conducted a 20-years long PubMed research (1.263 articles) for relevant comparisons.

RESULTS

Our study recorded 10940 patients with HD, 10241 with conservative and 699 with surgical treatment. Out of these, the male-to-female ratio of 1.3, and a peak in age distribution between 59 and 68 years old (32% of patients). For the entire study, we recorded a 90% incidence of immediate pain, immediate bleeding in 1.5% (11 cases), delayed bleeding in 1.0% (7 cases), and 0.6% surgical site infections. Urinary retention was also present, with 0.2% of patients, anal stricture in 1% and fecal incontinence for 0.5% of patients (4 cases). We recorded no severe complications such as Fournier`s gangrene or rectovaginal perforations. IBD accounted for 6% of the patients, with ulcerative colitis in 12% and Chron`s disease in 10.5%. 6.6% of the patients had AM, determining 4% immediate and 2% delayed bleeding, in surgically treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study determined that most common complications (pain, urinary retention, bleeding, and stricture) are correlated with each surgical technique and pre-existing comorbidities.

Strategies to Reduce Post-Hemorrhoidectomy Pain: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Excisional hemorrhoidectomy is considered as a mainstay operation for high-grade hemorrhoids and complicated hemorrhoids. However, postoperative pain remains a challenging problem after hemorrhoidectomy. This systematic review aims to identify pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for reducing post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Materials and Methods: The databases of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for randomized controlled trails (published in English language with full-text from 1981 to 30 September 2021) to include comparative studies examining post-hemorrhoidectomy pain as their primary outcomes between an intervention and another intervention (or a sham or placebo). Results: Some 157 studies were included in this review with additional information from 15 meta-analyses. Fundamentally, strategies to reduce post-hemorrhoidectomy pain were categorized into four groups: anesthetic methods, surgical techniques, intraoperative adjuncts, and postoperative interventions. In brief, local anesthesia-alone or combined with intravenous sedation was the most effective anesthetic method for excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Regarding surgical techniques, closed (Ferguson) hemorrhoidectomy performed with a vascular sealing device or an ultrasonic scalpel was recommended. Lateral internal anal sphincterotomy may be performed as a surgical adjunct to reduce post-hemorrhoidectomy pain, although it increased risks of anal incontinence. Chemical sphincterotomy (botulinum toxin, topical calcium channel blockers, and topical glyceryl trinitrate) was also efficacious in reducing postoperative pain. So were other topical agents such as anesthetic cream, 10% metronidazole ointment, and 10% sucralfate ointment. Postoperative administration of oral metronidazole, flavonoids, and laxatives was associated with a significant reduction in post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Conclusions: This systematic review comprehensively covers evidence-based strategies to reduce pain after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Areas for future research on this topic are also addressed at the end of this article.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative pain and symptoms control following laser haemorrhoidoplasty versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic haemorrhoids: a new standard

PURPOSE

Haemorrhoidal disease (HD) plagues one in every ten people, with a plethora of surgical treatment modalities, of which laser haemorrhoidoplasty (LHP) is a relatively novel option. This systematic review and meta-analysis objectively evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LHP compared against conventional (Milligan-Morgan) open haemorrhoidectomy (CoH).

METHOD

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar was conducted. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies (CCSs) which compared LHP against CoH were included, with postoperative pain as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative characteristics, short- and moderate-term outcome, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (6 RCTs and 6 CCSs), with a total of 1824 patients, were analysed. LHP resulted in reduced postoperative pain for the first day (mean difference of 2.07 visual analogue scale units), week, and month. The mean dosage and duration of postoperative analgesia use was similarly lower, with a mean difference of 4.88 mg (morphine) and 2.25 days, respectively. Crucially, recurrence was equivocal (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.21-2.40) at a mean follow-up duration of 8.58 ± 9.55 months. LHP resulted in lower blood loss and was 12.74 min shorter on average. LHP's postoperative recovery time was 9.03 days less with equivalent or decreased risk of most short- and moderate-term complications except anal thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that LHP is more tolerable than CoH, providing patients with superior postoperative quality of life at equivalent moderate-term efficacy. These findings contribute to improved understanding of LHP and its potential at enhancing the quality of HD care.

Post-hemorrhoidectomy pain: can surgeons reduce it? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

Hemorrhoidectomy remains the gold standard treatment for grade III-IV hemorrhoids. However, despite strong recommendations for the suitability of outpatient surgery, post-operative pain has been a limitation to the widespread inclusion of this condition in day surgery programs. The aims of the study were to analyze and compare the post-operative pain of conventional open hemorrhoidectomy, considered the reference technique, against other surgical procedures such as closed hemorrhoidectomy, open hemorrhoidectomy using bipolar or ultrasonic sealant, hemorrhoidopexy, or HAL-RAR, when performed exclusively as outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA methodology. All prospective and randomized studies of patients operated on for hemorrhoids in day surgery and specifying the value of post-operative pain, using a validated scale, were included. Conventional meta-analyses and a random-effects network meta-analysis were carried out.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included (3309 patients). None of the procedures described severe pain in the post-operative period. Hemorrhoidopexy was the least painful. Conventional open hemorrhoidectomy was the most painful on the first and seventh post-operative days. Pain was reduced after closed hemorrhoidectomy technique and when bipolar or harmonic scalpel was used. Furthermore, transfixive ligation of the hemorrhoidal pedicle was associated with increased post-operative pain.

CONCLUSION

Hemorrhoidal surgery is feasible in day surgery units and post-operative pain can be adequately managed in an outpatient setting. Hemorrhoidopexy was the least painful; however, data should be carefully evaluated by the high rate of long-term recurrence described in literature. Closed hemorrhoidectomy, performed with bipolar or ultrasonic sealing, avoiding transfixive ligation of the hemorrhoidal pedicle, may improve post-operative pain control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42020185160.

Study Protocol for the Use of Conventional Open Haemorrhoidectomy versus Laser Haemorrhoidoplasty in the Treatment of Symptomatic Haemorrhoids: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhoids result in a variety of symptoms that cause significant patient anxiety. Treatment has long been associated with post-operative complications, which cause significant symptoms and may result in readmissions. The open conventional haemorrhoidectomy (COH) is still regarded as the gold standard treatment for non-circumferential grade II-IV haemorrhoids. Laser haemorrhoidoplasty (LAH) has recently been studied and the initial results appear promising. This study aims to compare these 2 techniques in the treatment of symptomatic haemorrhoids. We hypothesize that LAH has significantly less pain and bleeding and better quality of life (QoL) scores 1, 3 and 12 months post-operatively.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, single-centre clinical trial will be conducted. All patients aged between 21 and 90 years who present with symptomatic grade II-IV haemorrhoids will be recruited. Exclusion criteria include those who have had previous operations for haemorrhoids and those with an increased risk of bleeding. Data collected will include patient demographics, pre- and intra-operative characteristics of the haemorrhoids, operative details and post-operative pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, complications, readmissions, and haemorrhoid-specific QoL surveys. Primary outcome will be median post-operative pain VAS score on post-operative days (POD) 1-10. Secondary outcomes include operative duration, bleeding on the first 10 days post-operatively, readmissions, procedure-related complications (fistulation, incontinence, stenosis), QoL scores, and recurrence of symptoms up to 12 months.

DISCUSSION

Results from this trial may demonstrate the superiority of LAH over COH in terms of post-operative pain and recovery. This would likely increase the adoption of LAH for the treatment of symptomatic haemorrhoids.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered on 1/4/2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329364?term=NCT04329364&amp;draw=2&amp;rank=1.

A national evaluation of the management practices of hemorrhoidal disease in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

In this study, we describe current practices in the management of hemorrhoidal disease in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A validated online survey was performed among Dutch surgeons and residents treating hemorrhoidal disease. Contact details were retrieved from the Dutch Association for Surgery resulting in 619 contacts. Only doctors who were treating hemorrhoidal disease regularly were asked to complete the questionnaire. The following items were assessed: initial treatment, recurrence, complications, and follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 133 respondents completed the survey. Ninety percent of the respondents started with rubber band ligation (RBL) as the first treatment in low-grade hemorrhoidal disease. In case of recurrence, 64% of the respondents repeated RBL three times before switching to a more invasive treatment modality. In grade III hemorrhoidal disease, the respondents preferred more invasive techniques: a sutured hemorrhoidopexy was performed in 24%, Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation (DG-HAL) in 9%, stapled hemorrhoidopexy in 19%, and the traditional hemorrhoidectomy in 31% of the patients, respectively. The majority of the respondents (39%) reported a mild complication in 5-10% of the patients. The most reported complication was pain. Nearly all the respondents (98%) reported a major complication in less than 5% of the patients. The majority of the patients (57%) were seen in outpatient clinics 6 weeks post-treatment.

CONCLUSION

This Dutch survey showed areas of common practice for primary treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. However, it also demonstrated varying practices regarding recurrent hemorrhoidal disease. Practical guidelines are required to support colorectal surgeons in the Netherlands.

Literature review of the role of lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) when combined with excisional hemorrhoidectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pain following hemorrhoidectomy is a distressing sequel to the procedure. Various methods have been used to alleviate post-hemorrhoidectomy pain; among these methods is the lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS). This review aimed to analyze all studies that evaluated the impact of LIS on the outcome of excisional hemorrhoidectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventeen studies were included after organized search of the literature using electronic databases including PubMed/Medline and EMBASE. The studies included comprised 2180 patients with median age of 44 years. Variables selected for the review comprised patients' characteristics, postoperative pain assessment, analgesic consumption, and complications as fecal incontinence (FI), urinary retention, and anal stenosis.

RESULTS

Overall, 933 (42.7 %) patients underwent LIS. Almost all studies assessing postoperative pain reported lower pain scores and less need for postoperative analgesia among patients who underwent LIS in comparison with patients who did not have LIS. Eleven of 13 studies that assessed continence state postoperatively reported higher rates of FI among patients who had LIS with a median rate of 7.7 % versus 1.25 % for patients who did not have LIS. Incidence of urinary retention after LIS ranged from 0 to 60 %. Anal stenosis occurred in 0-14.5 % of patients who had LIS versus 0-36.4 % in patients without LIS.

CONCLUSION

LIS effectively reduced postoperative pain and need for analgesics following excisional hemorrhoidectomy. LIS also managed to decrease incidence of postoperative urinary retention and anal stenosis significantly. The negative aspect of adding LIS to excisional hemorrhoidectomy was developing minor FI after surgery which was temporary in duration.

Ambulatory haemorrhoidal surgery: systematic literature review and qualitative analysis

PURPOSE

The aims of this study are to review the advantages and drawbacks of the ambulatory management of patients scheduled for haemorrhoidal surgery and to highlight the reasons for unplanned hospital admission and suggest preventive strategies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature from January 1999 to January 2013 using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Manuscripts were specifically analysed for failure and side effects of haemorrhoidal surgery in ambulatory settings.

RESULTS

Fifty relevant studies (6082 patients) were retrieved from the literature review. The rate of ambulatory management failure ranged between 0 and 61%. The main reasons for failure were urinary retention, postoperative haemorrhage and unsatisfactory pain control. Spinal anaesthesia was associated with the highest rates of urinary retention. Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation has less frequent side effects susceptible to impair ambulatory management than haemorrhoidectomy and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. However, the fact that haemorrhoidopexy is less painful than haemorrhoidectomy may allow ambulatory management.

CONCLUSION

Day-case haemorrhoidal surgery can be performed whatever the surgical procedure. Postoperative pain deserves special prevention measures after haemorrhoidectomy, especially by using perineal block or infiltrations. Urinary retention is a common issue that can be responsible for failure; it requires a preventive strategy including short duration spinal anaesthesia. Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation is easy to perform in outpatients but deserves more complete evaluation in this setting.

Recent advances in the management of hemorrhoids

Hemorrhoids are considered one of the most common anorectal diseases with a prevalence of 4.4% up to 36.4% of the general population, and a peak incidence between 45 and 65 years. Hemorrhoidal disease presents with a prolapsed lump, painless bleeding, discomfort, discharge, hygiene problems, soiling, and pruritus. Sliding anal canal lining theory is the most accepted theory as a cause of hemorrhoidal disease; however, it is also associated with hyper-vascularity, and, recently, with several enzymes or mediators involved in the disintegration of the tissues supporting the anal cushions, such as matrix metalloproteinase. A comprehensive search in published English-language literature till 2013 involving hemorrhoids was performed to construct this review article, which discusses advances in the management of hemorrhoids. This includes conservative treatment (life style modification, oral medications, and topical treatment), office procedures (rubber band ligation, injection sclerotherapy, infrared and radiofrequency coagulation, bipolar diathermy and direct-current electrotherapy, cryosurgery, and laser therapy), as well as surgical procedures including diathermy hemorrhoidectomy, LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy, Harmonic scalpel hemorrhoidectomy, hemorrhoidal artery ligation, stapled hemorrhoidopexy (SH), and double SH. Results, merits and demerits of the different modalities of treatment of hemorrhoids are presented, in addition to the cost of the recent innovations.

Tailored excisional treatment for high-grade haemorrhoidal disease

Patients affected by high-grade haemorrhoid with a fibrous internal pile or an important external component are suitable for an excisional procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of different excisional treatments such as Milligan and Morgan haemorrhoidectomy, Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy and Pexy-excision carried out according to a tailored treatment on each pathological pile. All the consecutive patients that underwent an excisional procedure for high-grade haemorrhoids in two different centres were considered for the present study. From January 2010 to December 2012, 135 patients affected by high-grade haemorrhoidal disease were treated with excisional procedures. No statistically significant differences were noted regarding age, sex distribution, symptoms, Goligher grade, length of surgery, number of pathological piles treated and number of pathological piles excised for each patient between groups. The Ferguson and Pexy-excision procedures yield better results in terms of pain and healing than open haemorrhoidectomy, whereas recurrence and complications are similar after 1 year. Excisional procedures are safe and effective for the treatment of high-grade haemorrhoids mostly if performed according to a tailored project. An increase in the number of pathological piles treated corresponded to an increase in the need of analgesics regardless of the procedure performed.

Conservative and surgical treatment of haemorrhoids

The management of haemorrhoids has evolved rapidly during the past few decades. Several new treatments have been proposed with the aim of reducing patients' postoperative pain, time to return to normal life, risk of early and late complications, and recurrence rate. Although conservative treatment based on dietary and lifestyle changes can help the majority of patients, and rubber band ligation and phlebotonic drugs can effectively treat grade I and II haemorrhoids, surgery is required for the most advanced stages. Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy is considered to be the gold-standard approach for grade IV haemorrhoids. An increasing number of minimally invasive treatment options, including mucopexy with or without mucosal resection and haemorrhoid artery ligation, have now been proposed for the management of grade III haemorrhoids. These approaches aim to correct the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms involved in the aetiology of haemorrhoids. An increased risk of recurrence is the price to pay for these minimally invasive and less painful treatments, but the sparing of the sensitive anoderm and a rapid return to normal life without pain are greatly appreciated by patients. An algorithm for the management of haemorrhoids using evidence-based medicine is also presented here.

An evaluation of Milligan-Morgan and Ferguson procedures for haemorrhoidectomy at Liaquat University Hospital Jamshoro, Hyderabad, Pakistan

OBJECTIVE

o compare the outcome of Milligan-Morgan (MMH) and Ferguson (FH) techniques for haemorrhoidectomy with regard to postoperative pain, control of bleeding, early mobilization of patients and wound healing.

METHODOLOGY

In this prospective, randomized clinical study conducted between January 2005 to December 2008, 213 patients with late 2(nd) degree; third or fourth degree hemorrhoids were assigned to two groups. One hundred ten patients in group A were operated by an open method and 103 patients in group B were operated by closed method.

RESULTS

Age ranged from 22-70 years with mean age of 45.5 years. Peak incidence was between 41-50 years. Out of 213 patients, 170 (79.81%) were male and 43 (20.18%) were females. The mean ± SD operating time was significantly more in group B (31.3±4.8 min) than group A (25.2±5.6). The duration of hospitalization and duration off from work was more in group A than the group B. Wound healing was quicker in group B than the group A. Post operative pain scores were significantly low in the Group A than Group B during first 24 hours and at first bowel movements. Reactionary hemorrhage occurred in 4 (3.63%) patients of group A, no patient in group B developed this complication. Retention of urine was seen in 13 (11.81%) patients in group A and 4 (3.88%) in group B. No patient in group A developed anal stenosis, while 3 (2.91%) patients in group B developed anal stenosis. Wound infection was one (0.9%) in group A and two (1.9%) in group B. Two (3.63%) patients in group A came with recurrent hemorrhoids and in group B, only one (0.97%) patient reported recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The closed technique is more beneficial with respect to postoperative pain, control of bleeding, early mobilization of patients and wound healing.

Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: is still the gold standard treatment?

Hemorrhoidectomy remains the most definitive procedure to treat symptomatic grades III and IV hemorrhoids. However, over the years, several modifications have been made to the original operation to improve the outcomes. A total of 693 consecutive patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids underwent Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Our results serve as a standard for comparison conventional hemorrhoidectomy (Ferguson's technique) with recent methods such as stapled hemorrhoidopexy and LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy. We have obtained a very low rate of post-operative pain after Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy (VAS pain score was 2.47 ± 1.1 after a day, 1.34 ± 0.7 after 7 days and 0.51 ± 0.1 after 2 weeks) as to for stapler and LigaSure procedure in the literature. Moreover, long-term results demonstrate high levels of patient satisfaction (the satisfaction was good in 624 patients after 2 weeks and in 658 patients after 1 year) with a low recurrence rates (7 patients had recurrence after 1 year and 21 patients after 2 years). We believe that Ferguson-closed hemorrhoidectomy could still be, at the moment, the gold standard to which other techniques are compared.

Evidence-based management of pain after haemorrhoidectomy surgery

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhoidectomy is associated with intense postoperative pain, but optimal evidence-based pain therapy has not been described. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on the management of pain after haemorrhoidal surgery.

METHODS

Randomized studies published in the English language from 1966 to June 2006, assessing analgesic and anaesthetic interventions in adult haemorrhoidal surgery, and reporting pain scores, were retrieved from the Embase and MEDLINE databases.

RESULTS

Of the 207 randomized studies identified, 106 met the inclusion criteria, with mixed methodological quality. Of these, 41 studies evaluating surgical and alternative interventions were excluded. Quantitative analyses were not performed, as there were limited numbers of trials with a sufficiently homogeneous design.

CONCLUSION

Local anaesthetic infiltration, either as a sole technique or as an adjunct to general or regional anaesthesia, and combinations of analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol and opiates) are recommended. If appropriate, a stapled operation may be preferable.

[The surgical treatment of hemorrhoids]

Surgery is the most effective treatment in patients with symptomatic grade III-IV hemorrhoids who have not responded to outpatient treatment, when there is associated abnormalities (anal fissure, anal fistula, skin tags) and in thrombosed hemorrhoids. Hemorrhoidectomy is currently the "gold standard" treatment. Randomized controlled trials comparing open with closed hemorrhoidectomy show no significant differences in pain scores. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy produces less postoperative pain than hemorrhoidectomy but is less effective in terms of symptom control. No treatment is superior to others in reducing postoperative pain except the use of drugs and anesthetic techniques. In patients with prolapsed internal hemorrhoids and thrombosed hemorrhoids, treatment may initially consist of an urgent hemorrhoidectomy with the same results as those obtained with elective surgery.

Open compared with closed haemorrhoidectomy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This review compares the most popular techniques in managing the wounds after excisional haemorrhoidectomy, which are either to lay the wounds open or to close them.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified from the major electronic databases using the search terms "hemorrhoid*" and "haemorrhoid*." Duration of operation, pain, length of hospital stay, time off work, time for wound healing, patient satisfaction, continence, manometry findings and complications were assessed. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed as appropriate or possible.

RESULTS

Six trials including 686 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 19.5 months. Quantitative meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in cure rates between the two techniques (relative risk, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.86 to 2.2; p=0.191). Open haemor-rhoidectomy was more quickly performed (weighted mean difference, 1.03 min; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.54; p<0.001). Closed haemorrhoidectomy wounds showed faster healing (weighted mean difference, 1.2 weeks; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.55; p<0.001). Hospital stay, maximum pain score, total and individual complication rates were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from faster wound healing after closed haemorrhoidectomy, open and closed techniques appeared equally effective and safe. However, there were only a few studies which presented information in different ways, and statistical heterogeneity was high.

Randomized clinical trial of the effects on anal function of Milligan-Morgan versus Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy

BACKGROUND

Studies of haemorrhoidectomy usually report postoperative pain, healing and complications, but rarely consider anal function in the longer term. The primary aim of this randomized trial was to compare long-term changes in anal function after open (Milligan-Morgan) and closed (Ferguson) haemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

A total of 225 patients were included in the trial, 115 in the open group and 110 in the closed group. Continence changes were recorded by means of validated questions and an incontinence score. Pain was self-reported using a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain and complications did not differ between the groups. Time to recovery was 17 days in the Milligan-Morgan group and 15 days in the Ferguson group. After 1 month the wounds were healed in 57.0 per cent of patients in the open group and 70.6 per cent of those in the closed group (P = 0.058). At 1 year, 78.9 per cent of the Milligan-Morgan group and 85.3 per cent of the Ferguson group reported no continence disturbance (P = 0.072). The incontinence score was improved at 1 year in the closed group (P = 0.015), but was unchanged in the open group (P = 0.645). Patients who had the Ferguson procedure were more satisfied with the outcome of surgery (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Closed Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy was superior to the open Milligan-Morgan procedure with respect to long-term anal continence and patient satisfaction.

Controversies in the treatment of common anal problems

Treating common benign anal diseases has evolved towards more outpatient procedures with better outcome. However, minimizing post-procedure morbidities such as pain and the avoidance incontinence remain the most significant concerns. We introduce some controversies and highlight the developments in current surgical practice for the treatment of common anal problems.