Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids
Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, Weatherly H, Fox D, Golder S, Jayne D, Drummond M, Woolacott N
Record ID 32006001325
To determine the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of circular stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) for the treatment of haemorrhoids.
Authors' recomendations: SH was associated with less pain in the immediate postoperative period, but a higher rate of residual prolapse, prolapse in the longer term and,reintervention for prolapse. There was no clear difference in the rate or type of complications associated with the two techniques and the absolute and relative rates of recurrence and reintervention for both are still uncertain. CH and SH had very similar costs and QALYs, the cost of the staple gun being offset by savings in hospital stay. Should the price of the gun change, the conclusions of the economic analysis may also change. Some training may be required in the use of the staple gun; this is not expected to have major resource implications. Given the currently available clinical evidence and the results of the economic analysis, the decision as to whether SH or CH is conducted could primarily be based on the priorities and preferences of the patient and surgeon. An adequately powered, good-quality RCT is required, comparing SH with CH, recruiting patients with second, third and fourth degree haemorrhoids, and having a minimum follow-up period of 5 years to ensure an adequate evaluation of the reintervention rate. Other areas for research are the effectiveness of SH in patients with fourth degree haemorrhoids and patients with co-morbid conditions, the reintervention rates for all treatments for haemorrhoids, utilities of patients up to 6 months postoperatively, the trade-offs of patients for shortterm pain versus long-term outcomes, and the ability of SH to reduce hospital stays in a real practice setting.
Project Status: Completed
URL for project: http://www.hta.ac.uk/1544
Year Published: 2008
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: England, United Kingdom
- Quality-Adjusted Life Years
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
- Risk Factors
- Treatment Outcome
- Postoperative Complications
- Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact Email: email@example.com
Copyright: 2009 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.