BACKGROUND: The isolated application of Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation (DGHAL) may fail due to the increased reprolapse rate for high-grade haemorrhoids. DGHAL has been combined with a proctoscopic-assisted transanal rectal mucopexy of the prolapsing tissue. The technique is called rectoanal repair (RAR) and is an evolution of various mucopexy and suture haemorrhoidopexy (SHP) techniques. A prominent external component may require minimal (muco-) cutaneous excision (MMCE) of protruding anoderm or minor cutaneous excision of skin tags. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with symptomatic Goligher grade III and IV haemorrhoids underwent DGHAL followed by either RAR or SHP. In 26 cases, the addition of MMCE was necessary. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two approaches with regards to pain scores measured with visual analogue scale (VAS). On postoperative day 1, mean pain score at rest was 5.81 (±2.23 SD) after SHP versus 5.08 (±2.35 SD) after RAR, while mean pain score at first defecation was 7.31 (±1.6 SD) versus 7.52 (±1.83 SD). There was no difference in the duration of analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and residual prolapse between the 2 procedures. The addition of MMCE did not affect postoperative pain nor analgesic requirements. With the exception of 8 patients who still had with skin tags or minimal protrusion, the remaining of patients (86 %) were asymptomatic and recurrence-free at an average follow-up of 20 months. Overall, 94.8 % of patients stated that they were satisfied with the results, and 91.2 % that they would repeat it if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of either SHP or RAR after DGHAL is a safe and effective surgical tactic for advanced grade haemorrhoids. Our initial results do not confirm any superiority of RAR over traditional SHP.
BACKGROUND: The isolated application of Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation (DGHAL) may fail due to the increased reprolapse rate for high-grade haemorrhoids. DGHAL has been combined with a proctoscopic-assisted transanal rectal mucopexy of the prolapsing tissue. The technique is called rectoanal repair (RAR) and is an evolution of various mucopexy and suture haemorrhoidopexy (SHP) techniques. A prominent external component may require minimal (muco-) cutaneous excision (MMCE) of protruding anoderm or minor cutaneous excision of skin tags. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with symptomatic Goligher grade III and IV haemorrhoids underwent DGHAL followed by either RAR or SHP. In 26 cases, the addition of MMCE was necessary. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two approaches with regards to pain scores measured with visual analogue scale (VAS). On postoperative day 1, mean pain score at rest was 5.81 (±2.23 SD) after SHP versus 5.08 (±2.35 SD) after RAR, while mean pain score at first defecation was 7.31 (±1.6 SD) versus 7.52 (±1.83 SD). There was no difference in the duration of analgesic requirements, postoperative complications and residual prolapse between the 2 procedures. The addition of MMCE did not affect postoperative pain nor analgesic requirements. With the exception of 8 patients who still had with skin tags or minimal protrusion, the remaining of patients (86 %) were asymptomatic and recurrence-free at an average follow-up of 20 months. Overall, 94.8 % of patients stated that they were satisfied with the results, and 91.2 % that they would repeat it if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of either SHP or RAR after DGHAL is a safe and effective surgical tactic for advanced grade haemorrhoids. Our initial results do not confirm any superiority of RAR over traditional SHP.
Authors: Paolo Giamundo; Walter Cecchetti; Luigi Esercizio; Giovanni Fantino; Maria Geraci; Roberto Lombezzi; Michele Pittaluga; Livio Tibaldi; Giovanni Torre; Marco Valente Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: G E Theodoropoulos; N Sevrisarianos; J Papaconstantinou; S G Panoussopoulos; D Dardamanis; P Stamopoulos; K Bramis; J Spiliotis; A Datsis; E Leandros Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-11-14 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: A Infantino; D F Altomare; C Bottini; M Bonanno; S Mancini; T Yalti; P Giamundo; J Hoch; A El Gaddal; C Pagano Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: P P Dal Monte; C Tagariello; M Sarago; P Giordano; A Shafi; E Cudazzo; M Franzini Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 3.781