Minimal open hemorrhoidectomy

Does the addition of perineal block enhance pain control after a haemorrhoidectomy? A prospective randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhoidectomy is associated with severe postoperative pain, a long rehabilitation, and QoL worsening for months. Most patients experience mild-to-moderate postoperative pain. We aimed to evaluate the intraoperative perineal block role for patients undergoing haemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, eligible patients with III-IV stage haemorrhoids were randomized to the experimental group (EG) with intraoperative perineal block and spinal anaesthesia and the control one (CG) only with spinal anaesthesia. During the postoperative period, the opioid consumption rate was evaluated as a primary endpoint, and the postoperative pain level according to VAS, systemic analgesics consumption, readmission, and complication rate, the timing of returning to work, patients' QoL, and overall satisfaction according to SF-36 were evaluated as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

One hundred patients completed the study (48 in EG and 52 in CG). Patients of the EG had less postoperative pain intensity (P < 0.0001), required less opioid analgesia (P = 0.03), and had longer pain-free postoperative periods (P = 0.0002). 90% of patients in the CG required additional NSAID injections for adequate analgesia compared with only 58% in the EG. The average hospital stays, complication rate, and average operation duration didn't reach clinical significance. General health evaluation according to the SF-36 score and the median satisfaction rate was better in the EG (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of the perianal block is safe and effective and should be administered to appropriate patients undergoing anorectal surgery.

Quality of life in patients with hemorrhoidal disease

Background

Operation for hemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common operations performed globally. However, we know little about the impact of the disease on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), or the importance of the observed clinical and anatomical changes.

Method

This was a single-center cross-sectional and cohort study. HRQoL was assessed using the Short Form 12 and 36 (SF12 and SF36), EuroQoL 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D), and a disease specific questionnaire; Short Health Scale for Hemorrhoidal Disease (SHS_HD). SF12 and EQ-5D scores in 257 patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids referred to our proctologic outpatient clinic were compared to a Danish background population adjusting for age, gender, body mass index and educational status.Symptoms were assessed using the Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score. The anatomical pathology was graded using Goligher's classification. The associations between clinical characteristics and HRQoL were tested. The impact of surgical treatment was assessed in 111 patients followed one year postoperatively.

Results

Patients reporting a high symptom load had lower SF12 physical health scores compared with the background population. The EQ-5D indexes indicated impaired HRQoL in men, women <50 years and patients with higher education. Improvements in all three HRQoL measures were seen after surgery.Symptom burden had a negative association with HRQoL measures, whereas the surgeon's grading of anatomical pathology had no association.

Conclusion

Hemorrhoidal disease has a negative impact on HRQoL related to the degree of symptoms. Surgical treatment improve the QoL. The surgeon's grading of anal pathology had no association with QoL.

Laser hemorrhoidoplasty for hemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP) is known as a new minimally invasive and painless procedure for symptomatic hemorrhoids. However, Milligan-Morgan (MM) may offer the best result of long-term cure rates. In this study, we aim to compare the efficacy between LHP and MM for hemorrhoidal disease treatment. Using specific keywords, we comprehensively go through the potential articles on PubMed, Europe PMC, and Google Scholar sources until April 19, 2022. All published studies on LHP and MM hemorrhoidectomy were collected. Statistical analysis was done by using Review Manager 5.4 software. Twelve studies with a total of 1756 patients with hemorrhoid grades II-IV were included for the analysis. Our pooled analysis revealed that LHP was associated with shorter operative time (p < 0.00001), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.0005), lower risk of urinary retention (p = 0.005) and anal stenosis (p = 0.0004), and lower VAS 24-h post-operative (p < 0.00001) when compared with MM. However, LHP and MM did not differ in terms of recurrence rate (p = 0.70). LHP was superior to MM procedure in terms of shortening the recovery time and minimizing post-operative complications for patients with hemorrhoidal disease.

ENSEAL® Hemorrhoidectomy, a Novel Technique, Versus Conventional Open Method for the Management of Grade III and IV Hemorrhoids

Background

Surgical removal of hemorrhoids is the gold-standard treatment for symptomatic grade III and IV hemorrhoid disease. There are numerous ways the hemorrhoidectomy surgical procedure is done but the most effective and least painful way is still to be elucidated.

Objective

To compare the outcomes of ENSEAL® (Ethicon, Inc., Raritan, USA) versus gold standard Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in patients presenting with grade-III and IV hemorrhoids

Materials and methods

After ethical approval, the Randomized Controlled Trial was conducted at the Department of Surgery, Unit III, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, between January 2020 and January 2022. In this study, 140 patients who met the inclusion criteria were recruited after informed consent. Patients were split randomly into two equal groups using a lottery technique. In group A, hemorrhoidectomy was carried out with ENSEAL®, whereas in group B, open hemorrhoidectomy was performed by the Milligan-Morgan method. the surgery duration and blood loss were noted. After the operation, patients were transferred to and discharged from the post-anesthesia recovery room. Patients were further followed up for pain scores after 24 hours. Data was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) v25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA). Data was categorized for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), degree of hemorrhoids, and duration of hemorrhoids. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

140 patients were included in this study. Group A patients underwent ENSEAL® hemorrhoidectomy, and group B was formed from those who underwent the Milligan-Morgan procedure. In group A, there were 41 (58.5%) males and 29 (41.4%) females, while in group B, there were 43 (61.4%) males and 27 (38.5%) females. The mean age of group A patients was 49.97 ± 7.36 years and 43.2 ± 8.01 years in group B. In group A, the mean operative time was 20.87 ± 3.05 min, while 27.10 ± 3.42 min in group B, which is statistically significant with a p-value of <0.001. In group A, mean blood loss was 9.79 ± 2.87 ml, while 13.36 ± 3.73 ml in group B, which is statistically significant with a p-value of <0.001. In group A, the mean pain score was 2.7 ± 1.08, while 3.34 ± 1.16 in group B, which is statistically significant with a p-value of <0.001.

Conclusion

When considering the length of the procedure and blood loss, ENSEAL® hemorrhoidectomy has been determined to be an effective treatment that the patients tolerated well. Therefore, ENSEAL® hemorrhoidectomy can be a safe and efficient alternative to conventional treatment for hemorrhoids that are causing symptoms.

Scoring systems as outcomes assessment of the treatments for haemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

The comparison between haemorrhoidal treatments is still unclear. Attempts have been made to adopt a unifying postoperative scoring system and thus ensure adequate comparison between clinical trials. We aimed to systematically review the available outcome scores of haemorrhoidal treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of science, Embase and Cochrane were searched from database implementation until the December 6th 2019. All studies describing or referencing a score to assess haemorrhoidal disease treatment were included. Likert scale alone, incontinence score alone, general assessment of quality of life or scores developed for other proctologic disorders were excluded. The main outcome measures were validation of the scores and correlation of the score items to the core outcome set for haemorrhoidal disease developed by the European Society of Coloproctology.

RESULTS

From the 633 records initially screened, 22 studies were included: 8 original articles describing a scoring system and 14 referencing a previously described scoring system. Only 1 score was validated by an external prospective cohort. All the scores evaluated the symptoms of haemorrhoidal disease. No score integrated the disease recurrences or patient's satisfaction. Scores values tended to decrease postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The scores described by Gerjy et al. and by Shanmugan et al. are available questionnaires, which have been validated and used in various studies. These scores might help researchers for comparative studies between treatment modalities and optimize haemorrhoids treatment.

Minimal Open Hemorrhoidectomy Versus Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization: The Effect on Symptoms: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the long-term efficacy of transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization compared with hemorrhoidectomy. Most studies investigated short-term effects with postoperative pain as the primary outcome. Being a benign disease, the long-term goal of treatment for hemorrhoids is the resolution of symptoms and improvement of quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of minimal open hemorrhoidectomy versus transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization on patient-reported symptoms.

DESIGN

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

This was a single-center study.

PATIENTS

Patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids grade II to IV (Goligher's classification) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to minimal open hemorrhoidectomy or transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was symptoms assessed by the Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score 1 year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain and recovery, adverse events, recurrence, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients received minimal open hemorrhoidectomy, and 50 patients received transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. No difference in symptom score at 1-year follow-up was found. Median (range) symptom score was 3 (0-17) after minimal open hemorrhoidectomy and 5 (0-17) after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (median difference = -1.0 (95% CI, -3.0 to 0.0); p = 0.15). Residual hemorrhoidal prolapse was reported more frequently (p = 0.008), and more patients had treatment for recurrence after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (7 vs 0 patients; p = 0.013). Patient satisfaction was higher after minimal open hemorrhoidectomy (p = 0.049). No differences were found in the impact on health-related quality of life, average and peak postoperative pain, recovery, or adverse events (p > 0.05). Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization was more expensive (median difference = &OV0556;555 (95% CI, &OV0556;472-&OV0556;693); p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

No blinding was included in this study.

CONCLUSION

No difference was found in symptom score 1 year postoperatively. Minimal open hemorrhoidectomy had a better effect on the hemorrhoidal prolapse and higher patient satisfaction. More patients needed treatment for recurrence after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. Minimal open hemorrhoidectomy has an immediate postoperative course similar to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B152.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061176. HEMORROIDECTOMíA MíNIMA ABIERTA VERSUS DESARTERIALIZACIóN HEMORROIDAL TRANSANAL: EL EFECTO SOBRE LOS SíNTOMAS: UN ESTUDIO ABIERTO CONTROLADO Y ALEATORIZADO: Hay evidencia limitada sobre la eficacia a largo plazo de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal en comparación con la hemorroidectomía. La mayoría de los estudios han investigado los efectos a corto plazo con el dolor postoperatorio como el resultado primario. Al ser una enfermedad benigna, el objetivo a largo plazo del tratamiento de la enfermedad hemorroidal es la resolución de los síntomas y la mejora en la calidad de vida.Comparar el efecto de la hemorroidectomía abierta mínima versus la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal en los síntomas reportados por el paciente.Ensayo controlado aleatorizado abierto.Estudio en sede única.Pacientes con enfermedad hemorroidal sintomática de grado II-IV (clasificación de Goligher).Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a hemorroidectomía mínima abierta o desarterialización hemorroidal transanal.El resultado primario fueron los síntomas evaluados por el Score de Síntomas de Enfermedad Hemorroidal un año después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, satisfacción del paciente, dolor y recuperación postoperatorios, eventos adversos, recurrencia y costos hospitalarios.Cuarenta y ocho pacientes recibieron hemorroidectomía abierta mínima y cincuenta pacientes recibieron desarterialización hemorroidal transanal. No se encontraron diferencias en la puntuación de los síntomas al año de seguimiento. La puntuación mediana (rango) de síntomas fue 3 (0-17) después de una hemorroidectomía mínima abierta y 5 (0-17) después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (diferencia mediana [IC95%]: -1.0 [-3.0-0.0], p = 0.15). El prolapso hemorroidal residual se informó con mayor frecuencia (p = 0.008) y más pacientes recibieron tratamiento por recurrencia después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (7 frente a 0 pacientes, p = 0.013). La satisfacción del paciente fue mayor después de una hemorroidectomía abierta mínima (p = 0.049). No se encontraron diferencias en el impacto sobre la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, el dolor postoperatorio promedio y máximo, la recuperación o los eventos adversos (p> 0.05). La desarterialización hemorroidal transanal fue más costosa (diferencia mediana [IC95%]: &OV0556; 555 [472-693], p <0.001).Estudio sin cegamiento.No se encontraron diferencias en la puntuación de los síntomas a un año después de la operación. La hemorroidectomía mínima abierta tuvo un mejor efecto sobre el prolapso hemorroidal y una mayor satisfacción del paciente. Más pacientes necesitaron tratamiento para la recurrencia después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal. La hemorroidectomía abierta mínima tiene un curso postoperatorio inmediato similar a la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B152. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco).ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02061176.