A systematic review of the literature assessing the outcomes of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus open haemorrhoidectomy.

Background: Symptomatic haemorrhoids affect a large number of patients throughout the world. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the surgical outcomes of stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) versus open haemorrhoidectomy (OH) over a 20-year period.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials published between January 1998 and January 2019 were extracted from Pubmed using defined search criteria. Study characteristics and outcomes in the form of short-term and long-term complications of the two techniques were analyzed. Any changes in trend of outcomes over time were assessed by comparing article groups 1998-2008 and 2009-2019.

Results: Twenty-nine and 9 relevant articles were extracted for the 1998-2008 (period 1) and 2009-2019 (period 2) cohorts, respectively. Over the two time periods, SH was found to be a safe procedure, associated with statistically reduced operative time (in 13/21 studies during period 1 and in 3/8 studies during period 2), statistically less intraoperative bleeding (3/7 studies in period 1 and 1/1 study in period 2) and consistently less early postoperative pain on the visual analogue scale (12/15 studies in period 1 and 4/5 studies in period 2) resulting in shorter hospital stay (12/20 studies in period 1 and 2/2 studies in period 2) at the expense of a higher cost. In the longer term, although chronic pain in SH and OH patents is comparable, patient satisfaction with SH may decline with time and at 2-year follow-up OH appeared to be associated with greater patient satisfaction.

Conclusions: SH appears to be safe with potential advantages, at least in the short term, but the evidence is lacking at the moment to suggest its routine use in clinical practice.