Marta Goglia1, Casimiro Nigro2, Paolo Aurello1, Elia Diaco3, Mario Trompetto4, Gaetano Gallo5. 1. Department of Surgery, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 2. Department of General Surgery, University of Rome "Tor Vergata, " Rome, Italy. 3. Minerva Surgical Service, Catanzaro, Italy. 4. Department of Colorectal Surgery, S. Rita Clinic, Vercelli, Italy. 5. Unit of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Abstract
Background: Sclerotherapy is defined as the injection of sclerosant agents causing fibrosis and scarring of the surrounding tissue. It is currently employed for the treatment of I-III degree hemorrhoidal disease (HD). The aim of this study is to investigate the use of a new automated device for the injection of 3% polidocanol foam. Methods: This is an observational study including 50 patients who underwent a sclerotherapy procedure with 3% polidocanol foam for II-degree HD according to Goligher classification. Patients were evaluated through validated scores [Giamundo score, Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score (HDSS), Short Health Scale (SHS-HD) and Vaizey score]. Follow-up was conducted until 3 months from the procedure. Results: Complete resolution of bleeding was achieved in 72% and 78% of patients, respectively, at 1 week and after 3 months from the procedure. Forty eight percent of patients were symptom free after the last follow-up visit (HDSS = 0). No major surgical complications were reported. Three patients out of 36 successfully treated, recurred, and needed a second sclerotherapy injection, which was successful in 2 of them. Conclusion: These preliminary results of 3% polidocanol foam injection on 50 patients suggest the efficacy and reproducibility of the technique with this new device in the short-term follow-up.
Background: Sclerotherapy is defined as the injection of sclerosant agents causing fibrosis and scarring of the surrounding tissue. It is currently employed for the treatment of I-III degree hemorrhoidal disease (HD). The aim of this study is to investigate the use of a new automated device for the injection of 3% polidocanol foam. Methods: This is an observational study including 50 patients who underwent a sclerotherapy procedure with 3% polidocanol foam for II-degree HD according to Goligher classification. Patients were evaluated through validated scores [Giamundo score, Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score (HDSS), Short Health Scale (SHS-HD) and Vaizey score]. Follow-up was conducted until 3 months from the procedure. Results: Complete resolution of bleeding was achieved in 72% and 78% of patients, respectively, at 1 week and after 3 months from the procedure. Forty eight percent of patients were symptom free after the last follow-up visit (HDSS = 0). No major surgical complications were reported. Three patients out of 36 successfully treated, recurred, and needed a second sclerotherapy injection, which was successful in 2 of them. Conclusion: These preliminary results of 3% polidocanol foam injection on 50 patients suggest the efficacy and reproducibility of the technique with this new device in the short-term follow-up.
The equipment needed to perform the procedure: an automated device, open-ended anoscope, a 20 Gauge needle, a 5-ml syringe, and polidocanol 3% liquid.
The equipment needed to perform the procedure: an automated device, open-ended anoscope, a 20 Gauge needle, a 5-ml syringe, and polidocanol 3% liquid.After the procedure, the patients were asked to walk and were discharged 20 min later, after a safety check. Stool softeners and flebotonics were administered in the post-operative period.Time of procedure was considered as a baseline (T0) and after that, the patients underwent follow-up visits, which consisted of external clinical evaluation after 1 week (T1), and a complete proctological evaluation, including digital rectal examination and anoscopy after 4 weeks (T2) and 3 months (T3). The patients were evaluated by validated scores. Giamundo score was utilised for the evaluation of bleeding at the baseline, and all follow-up visits (0 = absence of bleeding, 1 = <1 episode per month, 2 = 1 episode per week, 3 = 1–3 episodes per week and 4 = 4 or more episodes per week) (10).Symptom severity and quality of life were assessed using a five-item questionnaire: the Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score (HDSS). This score evaluates pain, itching, bleeding, soiling, and prolapse on a 5-point scale (0 = never, 1 = less than one time a month, 2 = less than one time a week, 3 = 1–6 days per week, 4 every day or always). Another used score was the Short Health Scale for HD (SHS-HD) score, including 4 questions with a 7-point Likert scale for each question minimum score = 0, 7 = maximum score = 0 at T0, and T3 (11). Anal continence was evaluated through the Vaizey incontinence score (minimum score = 0, perfect continence/maximum score = 24, totally incontinent) at T0, T2, and T3 (12).Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate peri-procedural pain (VAS) score (minimum score = 0, maximum score = 10).The primary outcome was defined as the complete resolution of bleeding episodes 1 week after the procedure based on the Giamundo bleeding score.Recurrences were defined as the new onset of bleeding after T1 in the successfully treated patients, always based on Giamundo score assessment, from a bleeding score of 0 to at least 2 at any time point between T2 and T3.
Eligibility Criteria
Patients aged between 18 and 75 years with symptomatic II-degree HD according to the Goligher classification were considered eligible for the present study.The patients with a history of cardiac disease, blood disorders, gastrointestinal tract oncological or inflammatory disorders, other proctological diseases, previous anal surgical procedures, recurrency of the pathology after sclerotherapy or rubber band ligation in the last 12 months, pregnancy or lactation, infectious disease, or previous pelvic radiotherapy were excluded. The inability to return for postoperative control visits was also considered an exclusion criterion.
Safety
Safety and toxicity of the procedure were investigated by reporting the adverse events (AE) after foam injection and using the WHO toxicity scale, respectively (13). AEs were reported according to the probability of occurrence as none, remote, possible, probable, or not assessable.
Statistical Analysis
Categorical variables were analysed and reported as counts and percentages, and as the mean ± SD (range) for continuous normally distributed variables, whereas ordinal categorical variables, and continuous not normally distributed variables were reported as median [interquartile range (IQR)]. The chi-square test was used for cross tabulations. The results associated with a p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Most of the population enrolled in the study was male, consisting of 31 patients out of 50 (62%), whereas the rest, the other 19 patients out of 50 (38%), were females. The mean age of the population was 48.3 ± 17.2 (range: 18–75) years. The mean operation time was 5.5 ± 1.7 (range: 3–10) min (Table 1).
Table 1
Patient characteristics and procedural results.
Male (N°, %)
31/50 (62%)
Mean age (years)
48.3 ± 17.2 (range: 18–75)
Mean operation time (minutes)
5.5 ± 1.7 (3–10)
Post-operative Pain (VAS > 0)
3/50 (6%) 0 (0–0)
Success Rate after 1 week (T1)
36/50 (72%)
Overall Success Rate (T5)
39/183 (78%)
Recurrence
3/36 (8.3%)
Adverse Events
None
Patient characteristics and procedural results.At the baseline (T0), Giamundo score had a mean of 3.18 ± 0.63 (range: 2–4), meaning that the majority of the patients, graded II according to the Goligher classification of HD, referred 1–3 episodes of bleeding per week before treatment. After 1 week, the complete resolution of bleeding was achieved in 36 out of 50 patients (72%), whereas only 12 patients reported an episode of bleeding (Giamundo score = 1) with a mean of.32 ± 0.55 (range: 0–2) with respect to the total population.Giamundo score maintained stable values even at the second follow-up visit after 1 month from the procedure (T2). It reported a mean value of 0.56 ± 0.93 (range: 0–3) with 17 patients referring at least one bleeding episode in the last month.However, the analysis at the third and last follow-up visits at 3 months from the procedure confirmed values stable in time for the Giamundo score with only 11 patients reporting a score equal or higher than 1 with a mean value of 0.3 ± 0.68 (range: 0–3) with an overall success rate of 78% (39/50). The differences of the Giamundo score were highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001) (Table 2).
Table 2
Differences among the mean of the Giamundo score at baseline (T0) and follow-up visits.
Mean
T0
T1
T2
T3
P-value
Giamundo score
3.18
0.32
0.56
0.3
<0.0001
Differences among the mean of the Giamundo score at baseline (T0) and follow-up visits.In 2 patients (4%), there was worsening of the Giamundo score at T2, from 1 to 3. For these patients, a second sclerotherapy session has been successfully performed. One patient got worse at T3, from 1 to 3, and a second sclerotherapy session has been planned but not included in the results.About 3 out of 36 (8.3%) successfully treated patients recurred according to the primary outcome, and, after the second sclerotherapy session, one patient became successful, one patient improved from 3 to 1, and one patient failed (remaining at Value 3 from preoperative to postoperative examination).Vaizey score at the baseline was considered completely negative with a median value of 0 (IQR: 0–1). It demonstrated to maintain the same results (median of 0, IQR: 0–0) at a T2 follow-up visit with a statistically significant p value (p < 0.021).On the other side, median HDSS was 11 preoperatively (IQR: 9–12), considerably improving at the T3 follow-up to a median value of 1.5 (IQR: 0–3); the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Forty eight percent of patients were symptom free (HDSS = 0) after the last follow-up visit.Similarly, improvement of the SHS-HD was statistically significant (p < 0.0001) from a median value of 16 (IQR: 14–18) to a reported value of 0 (IQR: 0–5) (Table 3).
Table 3
Differences among the median values of Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score (HDSS) and Short Health Scale (SHS) between baseline (T0) and 3 month follow up (T3).
Median
T0
T3
P-value
HDSS
11
1.5
<0.0001
SHS
16
0
<0.0001
Differences among the median values of Hemorrhoidal Disease Symptom Score (HDSS) and Short Health Scale (SHS) between baseline (T0) and 3 month follow up (T3).Only three patients referred to peri-procedural pain on the VAS score (<3), with a median value of 0 (IQR 0–0). No other intraoperative complication was registered.
Sclerotherapy is a valid therapeutical option in case of bleeding HD.Preliminary results of polidocanol injection with this new device on 50 patients suggest the efficacy of the technique in the short-term follow-up. This technique is safe and repeatable, useful in case of a bridge to surgery and in damage control emergency procedures. However, other investigations in a broader population sample and with a longer follow-up are needed.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Regione Calabria–Comitato Etico Sezione Area Centro. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
MG and GG: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work, drafting the work, revising it critically for important intellectual content, final approval of the version to be published, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. CN, PA, ED, and MT: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All the authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: P Giamundo; A Braini; G Calabro'; N Crea; P De Nardi; F Fabiano; M Lippa; A Mastromarino; A M Tamburini Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: G Gallo; J Martellucci; A Sturiale; G Clerico; G Milito; F Marino; G Cocorullo; P Giordano; M Mistrangelo; M Trompetto Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: G Gallo; R Pietroletti; E Novelli; A Sturiale; R Tutino; P Lobascio; R Laforgia; E Moggia; M Pozzo; M Roveroni; V Bianco; A Realis Luc; A Giuliani; E Diaco; G Naldini; M Trompetto; R Perinotti; G Sammarco Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 3.699