Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy Compared With Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy: Systematic Review of Randomized, Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether conventional hemorrhoidectomy or stapled hemorrhoidopexy is superior for the management of hemorrhoids. METHODS: A systematic review of all randomized trials comparing conventional hemorrhoidectomy with stapled hemorrhoidopexy was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the terms "hemorrhoid*" or "haemorrhoid*" and "stapl*." A list of clinical outcomes was extracted. Meta-analysis was calculated if possible. RESULTS: Fifteen trials recruiting 1,077 patients were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 37 months. Qualitative analysis showed that stapled hemorrhoidopexy is less painful compared with hemorrhoidectomy. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy has a shorter inpatient stay (weighted mean difference, -1.02 days; 95 percent confidence interval, -1.47 to -0.57; P = 0.0001), operative time (weighted mean difference, -12.82 minutes; 95 percent confidence interval, -22.61 to -3.04; P = 0.01), and return to normal activity (standardized mean difference, -4.03 days; 95 percent confidence interval, -6.95 to -1.10; P = 0.007). Studies in a day-case setting do not prove that stapled hemorrhoidopexy is more feasible than conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy has a higher recurrence rate (odds ratio, 3.64; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.40-9.47; P = 0.008) at a minimum follow-up of six months. CONCLUSIONS: Although stapled hemorrhoidopexy is widely used, the data available on long-term outcomes is limited. The variability in case selection and reported end points are difficulties in interpreting results. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy has unique potential complications and is a less effective cure compared with hemorrhoidectomy. With this understanding, it may be offered to patients seeking a less painful alternative to conventional surgery. Hemorrhoidectomy remains the "gold standard" of treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.041 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".