Double PPH technique for hemorrhoidal prolapse: a multicentric, prospective, and nonrandomized trial.

INTRODUCTION

Longo's technique (or PPH technique) is well known worldwide. Meta-analysis suggests that the failure due to persistence or recurrence is close to 7.7%. One of the reasons for the recurrence is the treatment of the advanced hemorrhoidal prolapse with a single stapling device, which is not enough to resect the appropriate amount of prolapse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe the application of "Double PPH Technique" (D-PPH) to treat large hemorrhoidal prolapses. We performed a multicentric, prospective, and nonrandomized trial from July 2008 to July 2009, wherein 2 groups of patients with prolapse and hemorrhoids were treated with a single PPH or a D-PPH. Results were compared. The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and efficacy of the D-PPH procedure in selected patients with large hemorrhoidal prolapse.

RESULTS

In all, 281 consecutive patients suffering from hemorrhoidal prolapse underwent surgery, of whom 74 were assigned intraoperatively to D-PPH, whereas 207 underwent single PPH. Postoperative complications were 5% in both groups (P = .32), in particular: postoperative major bleeding 3.0% in PPH versus 4.1% D-PPH (P = .59); pain 37.9 % PPH versus 27.3% D-PPH (mean visual analog scale [VAS] = 2.5 vs 2.9, respectively; P = .72); and fecal urgency 2.1% PPH versus 5.7% D-PPH (P = .8). Persistence of hemorrhoidal prolapse at 12-month follow-up was 3.7% in the PPH group versus 5.9% in the D-PPH group (P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the hypothesis that an accurate intraoperative patient selection for single (PPH) or double (D-PPH) stapled technique will lower in a significant way the incidence of recurrence after Longo's procedure for hemorrhoidal prolapse.