Rectoanal repair versus suture haemorrhoidopexy: a comparative study on suture mucopexy procedures for high-grade haemorrhoids.

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.