Evidence - Hemorrhoidopexy with stapler technique

The surgical treatment of hemorrhoids with a circular stapler (stapled hemorrhoidopexy, CS) traces back to Koblandin and Shalkov (surgeons, Kazakhstan), who first reported it in 1981 [1]. Longo from Palermo adopted this method in 1992 and contributed to its widespread use, including in Germany in 1998. Longo did not publish his own works on this topic; his contributions were limited to letters to the editor [2, 3].

Initially, the effect of the CS technique was explained by the circular interruption of arterial inflow to the hemorrhoidal plexus [4, 5, 6]. However, studies by Kolbert and Aigner demonstrated that the effect of a hemorrhoid stapler operation is more due to improved venous drainage of the hemorrhoidal plexus through the resection of the mucosal cuff rather than an interruption of arterial inflow [7, 8].

Since 1998/99, publications of case series on the CS method for hemorrhoidal disease have increased sharply. Due to the heterogeneous patient population with different stages of hemorrhoidal disease, the recurrence rate in these studies ranged from 0 to 58% [9]. The higher the stage, the greater the risk of recurrence or reoperation seemed to be [9, 10, 11]. The complication rate also varied greatly, ranging from 0 to 63%, with information on continence disorders mostly missing [12, 13].

Indications

The hemorrhoidopexy using the CS technique is indicated for reducible circular hemorrhoids of grade 3. In grade 4 hemorrhoids, there is a fixed, non-reducible prolapse, which postoperatively leads to traction tension of the stapler suture, resulting in dehiscence and thus a recurrent prolapse.

Both non-comparative and randomized studies included grade 4 hemorrhoids, which was reflected in meta-analyses. The recurrence rate after CS is significantly higher compared to hemorrhoidectomy according to Milligan-Morgan, especially in grades 3 and 4 hemorrhoids. Other authors report a higher recurrence rate in grade 4 hemorrhoids compared to grade 3 hemorrhoids. Zacharakis describes a recurrence rate of 59% and a reoperation rate of 43% after CS [9, 11, 14]. Therefore, the reducible circular prolapse is the ideal indication for the CS procedure.

In exceptional cases (circular finding, frustrating conservative therapy), it is also possible to operate on grade 2 hemorrhoids using the CS procedure. In cases of extensive hemorrhoidal prolapse, some Italian authors perform the CS procedure with two stapling devices [15 - 18]. For this purpose, so-called "high-volume" stapling devices have been developed, which can accommodate a larger resectate in the housing.

The evidence-based recommendations of the German S3 guideline for the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease are therefore:

• The stapler procedure should be offered as a procedure for circular third-degree hemorrhoidal prolapse [19 - 22].
• In grade 4 hemorrhoids, the stapler procedure should not be used, as the recurrence rate is higher compared to conventional surgical techniques [9, 11, 14, 23 - 31].

Postoperative Pain

Comparative studies have found that the CS technique causes less postoperative pain than the Milligan-Morgan and Ferguson techniques. In a randomized study with 95 patients, Basdanis reported significantly less pain after hemorrhoidectomy using Ligasure (LS) compared to the CS technique [32]. In Kraemer's study, no difference was found between LS and CS in terms of postoperative pain, as well as in two meta-analyses [33, 34, 35].

The results regarding postoperative pain in comparison to the CS and Harmonic Scalpel (HS) technique are not clear. In two randomized studies, postoperative pain after CS was significantly lower compared to HS, while Leventoglu found no difference in pain [36, 37]. Two studies reported on the difference between hemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL), recto-anal repair (RAR), and CS. In one study, pain after HAL and RAR was not significantly lower than after CS, while this difference was significant in the second study [38, 39]. The network analysis by Simillis found no differences in postoperative pain between CS and LS, HS, HAL, and RAR [40]. The only difference was between CS and MM/FG (less pain after CS).

Urinary Retention

One of the most common complications after hemorrhoid surgery is urinary retention. Three reviews found that the MM/FG methods showed a lower, non-significant urinary retention rate compared to CS [36, 40 - 44]. Only in one study was a significantly higher urinary retention rate after CS found compared to MM [44]. The comparison of LS and HS with CS showed no difference in the frequency of postoperative urinary retention [36, 37]. The network analysis by Simillis between CS and MM/FG/LS/HS/HAL/RAR also found no difference regarding urinary retention [40].

Bleeding

Several reviews found a lower, non-significant number of postoperative bleedings in the comparison of CS with MM and FG [40, 41, 45, 46]. The comparison to LS showed no difference in bleeding rate in two meta-analyses [34, 35]. This also applies to the comparison with HS in two randomized studies [36, 37]. In Verre's study, there were postoperative bleedings only in patients after CS, which were not significant, in contrast to HAL and RAR [39]. The network analysis by Simillis could not demonstrate a difference between CS and MM regarding postoperative bleedings. In contrast to HAL/RAR, CS showed a higher bleeding rate here [40].

Re-Operations

Three studies showed a significantly higher reoperation rate after CS compared to MM and FG [29, 47, 48]. In 4 other studies, this was not significant [21, 30, 49, 50]. In the meta-analyses by Tjandra et al., no significant difference in reoperation rate between CS and MM and FG was found [40, 51, 52, 53]. According to Laughlan, the reoperation rate after CS was significantly higher compared to MM, while reinterventions after FG were only slightly increased [46]. In comparison to HAL and RAR, Beliard found -not significantly- fewer reinterventions after HAL and RAR compared to CS, while Simillis found no significant difference in comparison to CS, LS, MM, and FG [38, 40]. The reoperations after CS were necessary in Brusciano due to persistent pain, bleeding, and remaining staples [irritation, bleeding) [54]. In Sileri, 16 patients had to be reoperated due to recurrence, urge incontinence, frequent bowel movements, severe persistent pain, colicky abdominal pain, fissure, and stenosis [55].

Strictures/Stenoses

As a result of the circular mucosal resection and anastomosis by the CS technique, circular stenoses and strictures can develop [56 -68]. In a digital rectal examination, most stenoses or strictures could be relatively easily dilated; in rare cases, a revision under anesthesia is required.

Recurrence

The term recurrence is defined differently in studies, including recurrent prolapse, recurrent symptoms, and reoperations. In most studies of the CS group, recurrence rates were higher in the CS group than in MM and FG [6, 21, 24, 29, 30, 48, 70 - 82]. The recurrence rate after CS was not significantly lower than after MM and FG in some studies [68, 83 - 88]. In contrast, various reviews and meta-analyses indicate a significantly higher recurrence rate after CS compared to MM and FG [46, 52, 53, 89 - 95]. However, stages 2, 3, and 4 were included in almost all meta-analyses. In Beliard's study, there were -not significantly- fewer recurrence rates after CS compared to HAL/RAR [38]. In the network analysis by Simillis, a significantly higher recurrence rate after CS compared to MM, FG, and LS is indicated [40].

Incontinence

After CS, urge incontinence can occur in some cases, which is often temporary. It was found in some studies that smooth muscle was detectable in the resectate in these cases. In a comparative study, smaller damages in the sphincter area (fragmented M. sphincter ani int.) were detected endosonographically when working with the 37 mm anoscope included in the stapler set [96]. In Schmidt's study, the risk of urge incontinence was twice as high in women if muscle tissue was detected in the resectate, while it was not increased in men [97]. In terms of continence scores and manometry values pre- and postoperatively, no significant differences were found between CS and MM in studies [67, 98].

Hasse found significantly higher incontinence scores after CS compared to Parks (PA), although significantly higher resting and voluntary pressures were measured in the CS group [73]. Wilson found through manometric studies that there were no significant differences between CS and MM [44]. Two reviews reported a non-significantly lower stapler incontinence rate, while one review reported a non-significantly higher incontinence rate [46, 91, 99]. Two meta-analyses found no difference in terms of continence function in the comparison of CS and LS [92, 93]. Also, in the comparison of CS and HS as well as CS and HAL/RAR, no differences were found [36, 37, 38]. In the network analysis by Simillis, no significant differences in terms of continence problems were found between the different methods (CS, MM/FG/LS/HS and HAL/RAR) [40].

The German S3 guideline provides the following evidence-based statement on complications after CS [40, 46, 53, 91, 92, 93].

• Compared to conventional operations, the complication rates for urinary retention, postoperative bleeding, and revision surgeries as well as postoperative incontinence are not higher with the CS technique.
• Pain is only lower in the early postoperative phase after CS compared to conventional procedures.
• The recurrence rate is higher after CS compared to conventional procedures.

currently none

1. Koblandin SN SJLA: A new method for the treatment of hemorrhoids using a circular stapler. Scientific Archive of the Zelinograd Medical Institute, Kazakhstan 1981: 27–8.

2. Longo A: Pain after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 2000; 356(9248): 2189–90.

3. Longo A: Stapled anopexy and stapled hemorrhoidectomy: two opposite concepts and procedures. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45(4): 571-2; author reply 572.

4. Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Chiumarulo C, Palasciano, N: Treatment of external anorectal mucosal prolapse with circular stapler: an easy and effective new surgical technique. Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42(8): 1102–5.

5. Kohlstadt CM, Weber J, Prohm P: Stapler hemorrhoidectomy. A new alternative to conventional methods. Zentralbl Chir 1999;124(3): 238–43.

6. Arnaud JP, Pessaux P, Huten N, et al.: Treatment of hemorrhoids with circular stapler, a new alternative to conventional methods: a prospective study of 140 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 193(2): 161–5.

7. Aigner F, Bonatti H, Peer S, et al.: Vascular considerations for stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12(5): 452–8.

8. Kolbert GW, Raulf F: Evaluation of Longo's technique for haemorrhoidectomy by doppler ultrasound measurement of the superior rectal artery. Zentralbl Chir 2002; 127(1): 19–21.

9. Zacharakis E, Kanellos D, Pramateftakis MG, et al.: Long-term results after stapled haemorrhoidopexy for fourth-degree haemorrhoids: a prospective study with median follow-up of 6 years. Tech Coloproctol 2007; 11(2): 144-7; discussion 147-8.

10. Michalik M, Pawlak M, Bobowicz M, Witzling, M: Long-term outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2014; 9(1): 18–23.

11. Ceci F, Picchio M, Palimento D, Cali, B, Corelli, S, Spaziani, E: Long-term outcome of stapled hemorrhoidopexy for Grade III and Grade IV hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51(7): 1107–12.

12. Huang W, Lin PY, Chin C, et al.: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy for prolapsed hemorrhoids in patients with liver cirrhosis; a preliminary outcome for 8-case experience. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22(9): 1083–9.

13. Orrom W, Hayashi A, Rusnak C, Kelly, J: Initial experience with stapled anoplasty in the operative management of prolapsing hemorrhoids and mucosal rectal prolapse. Am J Surg 2002; 183(5): 519–24.

14. Finco C, Sarzo G, Savastano S, Degregori, S, Merigliano, S: Stapled haemorrhoidopexy in fourth degree haemorrhoidal prolapse: is it worthwhile? Colorectal Dis 2006; 8(2): 130–4.

15. Naldini G, Martellucci J, Talento P, Caviglia, A, Moraldi, L, Rossi, M: New approach to large haemorrhoidal prolapse: double stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24(12): 1383–7.

16. Cosenza UM, Conte S, Mari FS, et al.: Stapled anopexy as a day surgery procedure: our experience over 400 cases. Surgeon 2013; 11 Suppl 1: S10-3.

17. Braini A, Narisetty P, Favero A, et al.: Double PPH technique for hemorrhoidal prolapse: a multicentric, prospective, and nonrandomized trial. Surg Innov 2013; 20(6): 553–8.

18. Stuto A, Favero A, Cerullo G, Braini, A, Narisetty, P, Tosolini, G: Double stapled haemorrhoidopexy for haemorrhoidal prolapse: indications, feasibility and safety. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14(7): e386-9.

19. Au-Yong I, Rowsell M, Hemingway DM: Randomised controlled clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidectomy vs conventional haemorrhoidectomy; a three and a half year follow up. Colorectal Dis 2004; 6(1): 37–8.

20. Senagore AJ, Singer M, Abcarian H, et al.: A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy and Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: perioperative and one-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47(11):1824–36.

21. Ammaturo C, Tufano A, Spiniello E, et al.: Stapled haemorrhoidopexy vs. Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy for grade III haemorrhoids: a randomized clinical trial. G Chir 2012; 33(10): 346–51.

22. Kim J, Vashist YK, Thieltges S, et al.: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in circumferential third-degree hemorrhoids: long-term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17(7): 1292–8.

23. Boccasanta P, Capretti PG, Venturi M, et al.: Randomised controlled trial between stapled circumferential mucosectomy and conventional circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse. Am J Surg 2001; 182(1):64–8.

24. Correa-Rovelo JM, Tellez O, Obregon L, Miranda-Gomez, A, Moran, S: Stapled rectal mucosectomy vs. closed hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45(10): 1367-74; discussion 1374-5.

25. Kairaluoma M, Nuorva K, Kellokumpu I: Day-case stapled (circular) vs. diathermy hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, controlled trial evaluating surgical and functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46(1): 93–9.

26. Racalbuto A, Aliotta I, Corsaro G, Lanteri, R, Di Cataldo, A, Licata, A: Hemorrhoidal stapler prolapsectomy vs. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a long-term randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2004; 19(3): 239–44.

27. Bikhchandani J, Agarwal PN, Kant R, Malik, VK: Randomized controlled trial to compare the early and mid-term results of stapled versus open hemorrhoidectomy. Am J Surg 2005; 189(1): 56–60.

28. Ortiz H, Marzo J, Armendariz P, Miguel, M de: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs. diathermy excision for fourth-degree hemorrhoids: a randomized, clinical trial and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48(4): 809–15.

29. van de Stadt J, D'Hoore A, Duinslaeger M, Chasse, E, Penninckx, F: Long-term results after excision haemorrhoidectomy versus stapled haemorrhoidopexy for prolapsing haemorrhoids; a Belgian prospective randomized trial. Acta Chir Belg 2005;105(1): 44–52.

30. Mattana C, Coco C, Manno A, et al.: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy and Milligan Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in the cure of fourth degree hemorrhoids: long-term evaluation and clinical results. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50(11): 1770–5.

31. Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, et al.: Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388(10058): 2375–85.

32. Basdanis G, Papadopoulos VN, Michalopoulos A, Apostolidis, S, Harlaftis, N: Randomized clinical trial of stapled hemorrhoidectomy vs open with Ligasure for prolapsed piles. Surg Endosc 2005; 19(2): 235–9.

33. Kraemer M, Parulava T, Roblick M, Duschka, L, Muller-Lobeck, H: Prospective, randomized study: proximate PPH stapler vs. LigaSure for hemorrhoidal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48(8): 1517–22.

34. Lee K, Chen H, Chung K, et al.: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes for stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic hemorrhoids in adults. Int J Surg 2013; 11(9): 914–8.

35. Yang J, Cui P, Han H, Tong, D: Meta-analysis of stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(29): 4799–807.

36. Chung CC, Cheung HYS, Chan ESW, Kwok, SY, Li, MKW: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs. Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48(6): 1213–9.

37. Leventoglu S, Mentes BB, Akin M, Oguz, M: Haemorrhoidectomy with electrocautery or ultrashears and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. ANZ J Surg 2008; 78(5): 389–93.

38. Beliard A, Labbe F, Faucal D de, Fabreguette, J, Pouderoux, P, Borie, F: A prospective and comparative study between stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy. J Visc Surg 2014; 151(4): 257–62.

39. Verre L, Rossi R, Gaggelli I, Di Bella, C, Tirone, A, Piccolomini, A: PPH versus THD: a comparison of two techniques for III and IV degree haemorrhoids. Personal experience. Minerva Chir 2013; 68(6): 543–50.

40. Simillis C, Thoukididou SN, Slesser AAP, Rasheed, S, Tan, E, Tekkis, PP: Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes and effectiveness of surgical treatments for haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 2015; 102(13): 1603–18.

41. Sutherland LM, Burchard AK, Matsuda K, et al.: A systematic review of stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Arch Surg 2002; 137(12): 1395-406; discussion 1407.

42. Sgourakis G, Sotiropoulos GC, Dedemadi G, et al.: Stapled versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: is there any evidence-based information? Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23(9): 825–32.

43. Chen J, You J: Current status of surgical treatment for hemorrhoids--systematic review and meta-analysis. Chang Gung Med J 2010; 33(5): 488–500.

44. Wilson MS, Pope V, Doran HE, Fearn, SJ, Brough, WA: Objective comparison of stapled anopexy and open hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45(11): 1437–44.

45. Nisar PJ, Acheson AG, Neal KR, Scholefield, JH: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy: systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47(11): 1837–45.

46. Laughlan K, Jayne DG, Jackson D, Rupprecht, F, Ribaric, G: Stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared to Milligan-Morgan and Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24(3): 335–44.

47. Kairaluoma M, Nuorva K, Kellokumpu I: Day-case stapled (circular) vs. diathermy hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, controlled trial evaluating surgical and functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46(1): 93–9.

48. Thaha MA, Campbell KL, Kazmi SA, et al.: Prospective randomised multi-centre trial comparing the clinical efficacy, safety and patient acceptability of circular stapled anopexy with closed diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Gut 2009; 58(5): 668–78.

49. Ganio E, Altomare DF, Milito G, Gabrielli, F, Canuti, S: Long-term outcome of a multicentre randomized clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2007; 94(8): 1033–7.

50. Lai H, Jao S, Su C, Lee, M, Kang, J: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy versus conventional excision hemorrhoidectomy for acute hemorrhoidal crisis. J Gastrointest Surg 2007; 11(12): 1654–61.

51. Shao W, Li GH, Zhang ZH, Yang, B, Sun, G, Chen, Y: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2008; 95(2): 147–60.

52. Giordano P, Gravante G, Sorge R, Ovens, L, Nastro, P: Long-term outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Surg 2009; 144(3): 266–72.

53. Madiba TE, Esterhuizen TM, Thomson SR: Procedure for prolapsed haemorrhoids versus excisional haemorrhoidectomy—a systematic review and meta-analysis. S Afr Med J 2009; 99(1): 43–53.

54. Brusciano L, Ayabaca SM, Pescatori M, et al.: Reinterventions after complicated or failed stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47(11): 1846–51.

55. Sileri P, Stolfi VM, Franceschilli L, Perrone, F, Patrizi, L, Gaspari, AL: Reinterventions for specific technique-related complications of stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH): a critical appraisal. J Gastrointest Surg 2008; 12(11): 1866-72; discussion 1872-3.

56. Guy RJ, Ng CE, Eu K: Stapled anoplasty for haemorrhoids: a comparison of ambulatory vs. in-patient procedures. Colorectal Dis 2003; 5(1): 29–32.

57. Nahas SC, Borba MR, Brochado MCT, Marques, CFS, Nahas, CSR, Miotto-Neto, B: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of hemorrhoids. Arq Gastroenterol 2003; 40(1): 35–9.

58. Ng K, Ho K, Ooi B, Tang, C, Eu, K: Experience of 3711 stapled haemorrhoidectomy operations. Br J Surg 2006; 93(2): 226–30.

59. Gerjy R, Lindhoff-Larson A, Sjodahl R, Nystrom, P: Randomized clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidopexy performed under local perianal block versus general anaesthesia. Br J Surg 2008; 95(11): 1344–51.

60. Slawik S, Kenefick N, Greenslade GL, Dixon, AR: A prospective evaluation of stapled haemorrhoidopexy/rectal mucosectomy in the management of 3rd and 4th degree haemorrhoids. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9(4): 352–6.

61. Kam MH, Lim JF, Ho KS, Ooi, BS, Eu, KW: Short-term results of DST EEA 33 stapler and neu@ anoscope for stapled haemorrhoidectomy: a prospective study of 1,118 patients from a single centre. Tech Coloproctol 2009; 13(4): 273–7.

62. Kam M, Ng K, Lim J, et al.: Results of 7302 stapled haemorrhoidectomy operations in a single centre: a seven-year review and follow-up questionnaire survey. ANZ J Surg 2011; 81(4): 253–6.

63. Bove A, Bongarzoni G, Palone G, Chiarini, S, Calisesi, EM, Corbellini, L: Effective treatment of haemorrhoids: early complication and late results after 150 consecutive stapled haemorrhoidectomies. Ann Ital Chir 2009; 80(4): 299–303.

64. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Orio A, et al.: Circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced hemorrhoidal disease. Hepatogastroenterology 1998; 45(22): 969–72.

65. Regadas FSP, Regadas SMM, Rodrigues LV, et al.: New devices for stapled rectal mucosectomy: a multicenter experience. Tech Coloproctol 2005; 9(3): 243–6.

66. Lin H, Ren D, He Q, et al.: Partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy for grade III-IV prolapsing hemorrhoids: a two-year prospective controlled study. Tech Coloproctol 2012; 16(5): 337–43.

67. Boccasanta P, Capretti PG, Venturi M, et al.: Randomised controlled trial between stapled circumferential mucosectomy and conventional circular hemorrhoidectomy in advanced hemorrhoids with external mucosal prolapse. Am J Surg 2001; 182(1):64–8.

68. Shalaby R, Desoky A: Randomized clinical trial of stapled versus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2001; 88(8):1049–53.

69. Ganio E, Altomare DF, Gabrielli F, Milito, G, Canuti, S: Prospective randomized multicentre trial comparing stapled with open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2001; 88(5): 669–74.

70. Cheetham MJ, Cohen CRG, Kamm MA, Phillips, RKS: A randomized, controlled trial of diathermy hemorrhoidectomy vs. stapled hemorrhoidectomy in an intended day-care setting with longer-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46(4): 491–7.

71. Kairaluoma M, Nuorva K, Kellokumpu I: Day-case stapled (circular) vs. diathermy hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, controlled trial evaluating surgical and functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46(1): 93–9.

72. Au-Yong I, Rowsell M, Hemingway DM: Randomised controlled clinical trial of stapled haemorrhoidectomy vs conventional haemorrhoidectomy; a three and a half year follow up. Colorectal Dis 2004; 6(1): 37–8.

73. Hasse C, Sitter H, Brune M, Wollenteit, I, Lorenz, W, Rothmund, M: Haemorrhoidectomy: conventional excision versus resection with the circular stapler. Prospective, randomized study. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2004; 129(30): 1611–7.

74. Racalbuto A, Aliotta I, Corsaro G, Lanteri, R, Di Cataldo, A, Licata, A: Hemorrhoidal stapler prolapsectomy vs. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a long-term randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2004; 19(3): 239–44.

75. Gravie JF, Lehur P, Huten N, et al.: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus milligan-morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with 2-year postoperative follow up. Ann Surg 2005; 242(1): 29–35.

76. Araujo SEA, Caravatto PPP de, Dumarco RB, Sousa, M: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy vs closed diathermy-excision hemorrhoidectomy without suture-ligation: a case-controlled trial. Hepatogastroenterology 2007; 54(80): 2243–8.

77. Stolfi VM, Sileri P, Micossi C, et al.: Treatment of hemorrhoids in day surgery: stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2008; 12(5): 795–801.

78. Nystrom P, Qvist N, Raahave D, Lindsey, I, Mortensen, N: Randomized clinical trial of symptom control after stapled anopexy or diathermy excision for haemorrhoid prolapse. Br J Surg 2010; 97(2): 167–76.

79. Lin H, Luo H, Zbar AP, et al.: The tissue selecting technique (TST) versus the Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsing hemorrhoids: a retrospective case-control study. Tech Coloproctol 2014; 18(8): 739–44.

80. Aytac E, Gorgun E, Erem HH, Abbas, MA, Hull, TL, Remzi, FH: Long-term outcomes after circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Tech Coloproctol 2015; 19(10): 653–8.

81. Panarese A, Pironi D, Vendettuoli M, et al.: Stapled and conventional Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: different solutions for different targets. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27(4): 483–7.

82. Iida Y, Saito H, Takashima Y, Saitou, K, Munemoto, Y: Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) with low rectal anastomosis using a PPH 03 stapler: low rate of recurrence and postoperative complications. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017.

83. Hetzer FH, Demartines N, Handschin AE, Clavien, P: Stapled vs excision hemorrhoidectomy: long-term results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 2002; 137(3): 337–40.

84. Senagore AJ, Singer M, Abcarian H, et al.: A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter trial comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy and Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: perioperative and one-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47(11):1824–36.

85. Bikhchandani J, Agarwal PN, Kant R, Malik, VK: Randomized controlled trial to compare the early and mid-term results of stapled versus open hemorrhoidectomy. Am J Surg 2005; 189(1): 56–60.

86. Kim J, Vashist YK, Thieltges S, et al.: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in circumferential third-degree hemorrhoids: long-term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17(7): 1292–8.

87. Ripetti V, La Vaccara V, Greco S, Arullani, A: A Randomized Trial Comparing Stapled Rectal Mucosectomy Versus Open and Semiclosed Hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58(11): 1083–90.

88. Mascagni D, Zeri KP, Di Matteo FM, Peparini, N, Maturo, A, Berni, A: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy: surgical notes and results. Hepatogastroenterology 2003; 50(54): 1878–82.

89. Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, et al.: Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008; 12(8): iii-iv, ix-x, 1-193.

90. Nisar PJ, Acheson AG, Neal KR, Scholefield, JH: Stapled hemorrhoidopexy compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy: systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47(11): 1837–45.

91. Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PHD, Malthaner RA: Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006(4): CD005393.

92. Lee K, Chen H, Chung K, et al.: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes for stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic hemorrhoids in adults. Int J Surg 2013; 11(9): 914–8.

93. Yang J, Cui P, Han H, Tong, D: Meta-analysis of stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(29): 4799–807.

94. Shao W, Li GH, Zhang ZH, Yang, B, Sun, G, Chen, Y: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2008; 95(2): 147–60.

95. Chen J, You J: Current status of surgical treatment for hemorrhoids--systematic review and meta-analysis. Chang Gung Med J 2010; 33(5): 488–500

96. Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tsang C, Eu, KW: Randomized trial assessing anal sphincter injuries after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 2001; 88(11): 1449–55.

97. Schmidt J, Dogan N, Langenbach R, Zirngibl, H: Fecal urge incontinence after stapled anopexia for prolapse and hemorrhoids: a prospective, observational study. World J Surg 2009; 33(2): 355–64.

98. Ho YH, Cheong WK, Tsang C, et al.: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy--cost and effectiveness. Randomized, controlled trial including incontinence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments at up to three months. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43(12): 1666–75.

99. Lehur PA, Gravie JF, Meurette G: Circular stapled anopexy for haemorrhoidal disease: results. Colorectal Dis 2001; 3(6): 374–9.