PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of recurrence and residual skin tag after the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) in the Chinese- and English-language literature to explore the definition of recurrence after PPH. METHODS: Related Chinese- and English-language literature was collected by several methods. Meta-analysis was used to compare the incidence of recurrence and residual skin tag of PPH versus CH. RESULTS: In China, 13.94% of hemorrhoids had a skin tag after PPH. The mean recurrence rate after PPH was 3.23% (range 0.40-26.44%). Our meta-analysis of PPH versus CH of the Chinese studies showed that PPH had a significantly lower recurrence rate-13 studies, odds ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.42, p < 0.00001-and a higher incidence of skin tags with no significance-6 studies, OR 3.42, 95% CI 0.49-24.04, p = 0.22. Our meta-analysis of PPH versus CH among the English-language studies showed that PPH had a significantly higher recurrence rate-17 studies, 636 patients in the PPH group vs. 625 patients in the CH group, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57-5.56, p = 0.0008-and a significantly higher incidence of residual skin tags-8 studies, 297 patients in the PPH group vs. 289 patients in the CH group, OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.15-3.05, p = 0.01. However, the recurrence of prolapse was stated to be ascertained by anorectal examination in only six studies; meta-analysis of the six studies showed that PPH was not associated with a higher recurrence-six studies, 230 patients in the PPH group vs. 220 patients in the CH group; OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.70-5.00, p = 0.22. CONCLUSIONS: PPH is not associated with a higher recurrence rate but is associated with a higher incidence of skin tags compared with CH. The reported high recurrence rates are probably caused by improper inclusion of residual skin tags into the recurrence data. Surgeons should perform anorectal examinations to differentiate a residual skin tag from a recurrence.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of recurrence and residual skin tag after the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) in the Chinese- and English-language literature to explore the definition of recurrence after PPH. METHODS: Related Chinese- and English-language literature was collected by several methods. Meta-analysis was used to compare the incidence of recurrence and residual skin tag of PPH versus CH. RESULTS: In China, 13.94% of hemorrhoids had a skin tag after PPH. The mean recurrence rate after PPH was 3.23% (range 0.40-26.44%). Our meta-analysis of PPH versus CH of the Chinese studies showed that PPH had a significantly lower recurrence rate-13 studies, odds ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.42, p < 0.00001-and a higher incidence of skin tags with no significance-6 studies, OR 3.42, 95% CI 0.49-24.04, p = 0.22. Our meta-analysis of PPH versus CH among the English-language studies showed that PPH had a significantly higher recurrence rate-17 studies, 636 patients in the PPH group vs. 625 patients in the CH group, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.57-5.56, p = 0.0008-and a significantly higher incidence of residual skin tags-8 studies, 297 patients in the PPH group vs. 289 patients in the CH group, OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.15-3.05, p = 0.01. However, the recurrence of prolapse was stated to be ascertained by anorectal examination in only six studies; meta-analysis of the six studies showed that PPH was not associated with a higher recurrence-six studies, 230 patients in the PPH group vs. 220 patients in the CH group; OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.70-5.00, p = 0.22. CONCLUSIONS:PPH is not associated with a higher recurrence rate but is associated with a higher incidence of skin tags compared with CH. The reported high recurrence rates are probably caused by improper inclusion of residual skin tags into the recurrence data. Surgeons should perform anorectal examinations to differentiate a residual skin tag from a recurrence.
Authors: P Fueglistaler; M O Guenin; I Montali; B Kern; R Peterli; M von Flüe; C Ackermann Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: J Burch; D Epstein; A Baba-Akbari; H Weatherly; D Fox; S Golder; D Jayne; M Drummond; N Woolacott Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: P Lucarelli; M Picchio; M Caporossi; F De Angelis; A Di Filippo; F Stipa; E Spaziani Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo; Lucas de Araujo Horcel; Victor Edmond Seid; Alexandre Bruno Bertoncini; Sidney Klajner Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2016 Jul-Sep