Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy

Abstract

Background: This paper compares stapled haemorrhoidopexy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of haemorrhoids.

Methods: An electronic literature search was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews. Results on efficacy and safety were analysed. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine long-term outcomes.

Results: Twenty-nine randomized clinical trials recruiting 2056 patients were identified. Meta-analysis showed that stapled haemorrhoidopexy was less painful than conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Stapled haemorrhoidopexy required a shorter inpatient stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.95 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) -1.32 to -0.59) days; P < 0.001) and operating time (WMD -11.42 (95 per cent c.i. -18.26 to -4.59) min; P = 0.001). It was also associated with a faster return to normal activities (WMD -11.75 (95 per cent c.i. -21.42 to -2.08) days; P = 0.017). No significant difference was noted between the two techniques in terms of the total incidence of complications. Stapled haemorrhoidopexy was associated with a higher rate of recurrent disease (relative risk 2.29 (95 per cent c.i. 1.57 to 3.33); P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Stapled haemorrhoidopexy offers some short-term benefits over conventional operation but the total complication rates are similar for both techniques. Stapled haemorrhoidopexy is associated with a higher rate of recurrent disease.