Search

Submucosal hemorrhoidectomy (Parks' procedure) is a recognized method for treating acute hemorrhoidal crisis. Anoderm preservation has been stressed in various techniques described for elective or emergency excisional hemorrhoidal management. Mucopexy techniques have been proven useful as an adjunct to minimally resectional techniques. A modified submucosal technique with anoderm preservation and mucopexy was applied to 45 patients who presented on an emergency basis with hemorrhoidal crisis. External piles were minimally removed, the minimum possible amount of diseased mucosa was excised, a linear incision was used at the anoderm to enter the subanodermal/mucosal plane to achieve the submucosal excision, and a mucopexy was added at the approximation of the mucosal flaps. Postoperative morbidity was minimal and pain after the procedure remained at acceptable levels. This technique allows for an excision limited to the pathology with important anatomic tissue preservation. This results in conservation of the sensitive and useful anoderm, a decreased risk of stenosis, and addresses the mucosal prolapse. The level of postoperative pain with this technique is acceptable and long-term follow-up reveals a high degree of patient satisfaction.

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.