Stapled Hemorrhoidectomy versus Conventional Excision Hemorrhoidectomy for Acute Hemorrhoidal Crisis

We compared the safety and clinical outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidectomy and conventional excision hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of acute hemorrhoidal crisis, and analyzed various factors associated with complications in stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Forty patients underwent stapled hemorrhoidectomy and forty underwent conventional excision hemorrhoidectomy. All had the operation under local anesthesia with conscious sedation within 24 h of admission. The length of surgery, hospital stay, disability, postoperative pain, and the use of analgesics were significantly less for patients in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy did not significantly increase the rate of complications. Five patients in the stapled group (12.5%) required further surgical intervention: three with thrombosed hemorrhoids and two with recurrent prolapse. No serious complications were reported in either group. Patient satisfaction was similar in the two groups. Increased age was identified as a factor that significantly elevated the risk of complications in the stapled group (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01–1.13). Anemia and time between the onset of prolapsed hemorrhoids and hospital admission were also risk factors for complications, although they were not significant. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is a feasible treatment for selected patients with an acute hemorrhoidal crisis and has a similar complication rate to that of conventional excision hemorrhoidectomy. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is superior in less-postoperative pain, shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, and earlier return to normal activity. However, we suggest that older patients with anemia or a prolonged hemorrhoidal crisis are unsuitable for stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Washington, DC, May 19–23, 2007 (poster presentation).