Este artículo no tiene resumen

Haemorrhoids are variceal dilatations of the anal and perianal venous plexus and often develop secondary to the persistently elevated venous pressure within the haemorrhoidal plexus (Kumar 2005). Phlebotonics are a heterogenous class of drugs consisting of plant extracts (i.e. flavonoids) and synthetic compounds (i.e. calcium dobesilate). Although their precise mechanism of action has not been fully established, they are known to improve venous tone, stabilize capillary permeability and increase lymphatic drainage. They have been used to treat a variety of conditions including chronic venous insufficiency, lymphoedema and haemorrhoids.Numerous trials assessing the effect of phlebotonics in treating the symptoms and signs of haemorrhoidal disease suggest that there is a potential benefit. The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of phlebotonics in alleviating the signs, symptoms and severity of haemorrhoidal disease and verify their effect post-haemorrhoidectomy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library 2011 issue 9 , MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to September 2011). Only randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease were used. No cross-over or cluster-randomized trials were included for analysis and any trial which had a quasi-random method of allocation was excluded. Two authors independently extracted the data and analysed the eligibility of the data for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by meaningful discussion. We considered twenty-four studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Twenty of these studies (enrolling a total of 2344 participants) evaluated the use of phlebotonics versus a control intervention. One of these twenty studies evaluated the use of phlebotonics with a medical intervention and another study with rubber band ligation.The remaining four studies included two which compared different forms of phlebotonics with each other, one study which evaluated phlebotonics with a medical intervention and one study which compared the use of phlebotonics with infrared photocoagulation. Eight studies were excluded for various reasons including poor methodological quality.Phlebotonics demonstrated a statistically significant beneficial effect for the outcomes of pruritus (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.79) (P=0.02), bleeding (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) (P=0.0002), bleeding post-haemorrhoidectomy (OR 0.18; 95% 0.06 to 0.58)(P=0.004), discharge and leakage (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42) (P=0.0008) and overall symptom improvement (OR 15.99 95% CI 5.97 to 42.84) (P< 0.00001), in comparison with a control intervention. Although beneficial they did not show a statistically significant effect compared with a control intervention for pain (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.11) (P=0.06), pain scores post-haemorrhoidectomy (SMD -1.04; 95% CI -3.21 to 1.12 ) (P= 0.35) or post-operative analgesic consumption (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99)(P=0.05). The evidence suggests that there is a potential benefit in using phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease as well as a benefit in alleviating post-haemorrhoidectomy symptoms. Outcomes such as bleeding and overall symptom improvement show a statistically significant beneficial effect and there were few concerns regarding their overall safety from the evidence presented in the clinical trials.However methodological limitations were encountered. In order to enhance our conclusion further, more robust clinical trials which take into account these limitations will need to be performed in the future.[CINAHL Note: The Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews contain interactive software that allows various calculations in the MetaView.]

Hemorrhoids are common human afflictions known since the dawn of history. Surgical management of this condition has made tremendous progress from complex ligation and excision procedures in the past to simpler techniques that allow the patient to return to normal life within a short period. Newer techniques try to improve on the post-operative complications of older ones. The surgical options for the management of hemorrhoids today are many. Capturing all in a single article may be difficult if not impossible. The aim of this study therefore is to present in a concise form some of the common surgical options in current literature, highlighting some important post operative complications. Current literature is searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. The conclusion is that even though there are many surgical options in the management of hemorrhoids today, most employ the ligature and excision technique with newer ones having reduced post operative pain and bleeding.

BACKGROUND:

Symptomatic hemorrhoids are a common medical condition, which increase in prevalence in women during pregnancy and postpartum. Although the evidence appears to be inconclusive, narrative reviews and clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of laxatives (and fiber) for the treatment of hemorrhoids and relief of symptoms. This is due to their safety and low cost.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the impact of laxatives on a wide range of symptoms in people with symptomatic hemorrhoids.

SEARCH METHODS:

Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 2005), EMBASE (1980 to 2005), CINAHL (1982 to 2005), BIOSIS, and AMED (Allied and Alternative Medicine Database), for eligible trials (including conference proceedings).
We sought missing and additional information from authors, industry, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We selected all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared any type of laxative to placebo or no therapy in any patient population.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion and retrieved all potentially relevant studies. Data were extracted from studies that met our selection criteria on study population, intervention used, pre-specified outcomes, and methodology. We extracted methodological information for the assessment of internal validity: existence and method of generation of the randomization schedule, and method of allocation concealment; blinding of caregivers and outcomes assessors; numbers of and reasons for participants lost to follow up; and use of validated outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS:

Seven randomised trials enrolling a total of 378 participants to fiber or a non-fiber control were identified. Meta-analyses using random-effects models showed that laxatives in the form of fiber had a beneficial effect in the treatment of symptomatic hemorrhoids. The risk of not improving hemorrhoids and having persisting symptoms decreased by 53% in the fiber group (risk reduction (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.68). These results are compatible with large treatment effects regarding prolapse, pain, itching, although the pooled analyses showed a tendency toward no-effect for these parametres.
The effect on bleeding showed a significant difference in favour of the fiber (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89).
Studies including data on multiple follow ups (usually after six weeks and three months) showed consistent results over time.
However, we have to stress two possible limitations of this review: the risk of publication bias, and only moderate study quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The use of fiber shows a consistent beneficial effect for relieving overall symptoms and bleeding in the treatment of symptomatic hemorrhoids.

BACKGROUND:

Hemorrhoids are one of the most common anorectal disorders. The Milligan-Morgan open hemorrhoidectomy is the most widely practiced surgical technique used for the management of hemorrhoids and is considered the current "gold standard". Circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy was first described by Longo in 1998 as alternative to conventional excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Early, small randomized-controlled trials comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery have shown it to be less painful and that it is associated with quicker recovery. The reports also suggest a better patient acceptance and a higher compliance with day-case procedures potentially making it more economical. A previous Cochrane Review of stapled hemorrhoidopexy and conventional excisional surgery has shown that the stapled technique is associated with a higher risk of recurrent hemorrhoids and some symptoms in long term follow-up. Since this initial review, several more randomized controlled trials have been published that may shed more light on the differences between the novel stapled approach and conventional excisional techniques.

OBJECTIVES:

This review compares the use of circular stapling devices and conventional excisional techniques in the surgical treatment of hemorrhoids. Its goal is to ascertain whether there is any difference in the outcomes of the two techniques in patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched all the major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from 1998 to December 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

All randomized controlled trials comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy to conventional excisional hemorrhoidal surgeries with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Data were collected on a data sheet. When appropriate, an Odds Ratio was generated using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS:

Patients with SH were significantly more likely to have recurrent hemorrhoids in long term follow up at all time points than those with CH (12 trials, 955 patients, OR 3.22, CI 1.59-6.51, p=0.001). There were 37 recurrences out of 479 patients in the stapled group versus only 9 out of 476 patients in the conventional group. Similarly, in trials where there was follow up of one year or more, SH was associated with a greater proportion of patients with hemorrhoid recurrence (5 trials, 417 patients, OR 3.60, CI 1.24-10.49, p=0.02). Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients with SH complained of the symptom of prolapse at all time points (13 studies, 1191 patients, OR 2.65, CI 1.45-4.85, p=0.002). In studies with follow up of greater than one year, the same significant outcome was found (7 studies, 668 patients, OR 3.14, CI 1.20-8.22, p=0.02). Patients undergoing SH were more likely to require an additional operative procedure compared to those who underwent CH (8 papers, 553 patients, OR 2.75, CI 1.31-5.77, p=0.008). When all symptoms were considered, patients undergoing CH surgery were more likely to be asymptomatic (12 trials, 1097 patients, OR 0.59, CI 0.40-0.88). Non significant trends in favor of SH were seen in pain, pruritis ani, and fecal urgency. All other clinical parameters showed trends favoring CH.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Stapled hemorrhoidopexy is associated with a higher long-term risk of hemorrhoid recurrence and the symptom of prolapse. It is also associated with a higher likelihood of long-term symptom recurrence and the need for additional operations compared to conventional excisional hemorrhoid surgeries. Patients should be informed of these risks when being offered the stapled hemorrhoidopexy as surgical therapy. If hemorrhoid recurrence and prolapse are the most important clinical outcomes, then conventional excisional surgery remains the "gold standard" in the surgical treatment of internal hemorrhoids.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate and compare the clinical effects of procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) and Ligasure technique (LT) for the treatment of severe hemorrhoids.

METHODS:

Patients with prolapsed hemorrhoids were randomly divided into two groups treated with PPH (n=44) and LT (n=42). The outcomes were evaluated postoperatively (i.e., operation time, length of hospital stay, pain intensity scoring, relapse of prolapse, bleeding and cost).

RESULTS:

(1)The average operating time for patients treated by LT was (12.0+/- 4.1) min, while for those by PPH was(19.0+/- 6.4)min (P < 0.05). (2)The average scores of visual analogue scale (VAS) for PPH and LT patients were 3.1 points (2 approximately 6) and 5.4 points (3~8) respectively(P < 0.05). (3)The average costs for LT group and PPH group were (4838+/- 301) yuan and (7796+/- 492) yuan respectively (P < 0.05). (4)In PPH group, 4 patients were complicated with hemorrhage (over 50 ml) and 1 patients with relapse, while there were no complications occurred in LT group. (5)Six months after operation, the self scores of postoperative pain,defecation and total satisfaction were 95.0%, 100% and 100% in PPH group, and 87.2%, 97.4% and 97.4% in LT group respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared with PPH, LT has the advantages of shorter operation time, less hemorrhage and expense, but more postoperative pain. Both LT and PPH are effective procedures for severe hemorrhoids.

INTRODUCTION:

Constipation, heartburn, and haemorrhoids are common gastrointestinal complaints during pregnancy. Constipation occurs in 11% to 38% of pregnant women. Although the exact prevalence of haemorrhoids during pregnancy is unknown, the condition is common, and the prevalence of symptomatic haemorrhoids in pregnant women is higher than in non-pregnant women. The incidence of heartburn in pregnancy is reported to be 17% to 45%.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES:

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent or treat constipation in pregnancy? What are the effects of interventions to prevent or treat haemorrhoids in pregnancy? What are the effects of interventions to prevent or treat heartburn in pregnancy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS:

We found seven systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acid-suppressing drugs; anaesthetic agents (topical); antacids with or without alginates; bulk-forming laxatives; compound corticosteroid and anaesthetic agents (topical); corticosteroid agents (topical); increased fibre intake; increased fluid intake; osmotic laxatives; raising the head of the bed; reducing caffeine intake, intake of fatty foods, and the size and frequency of meals; rutosides; sitz baths; and stimulant laxatives.

BACKGROUND:

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of flavonoids on those symptoms important to patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids.

METHODS:

A comprehensive search strategy was used. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials comparing any type of flavonoid to placebo or no therapy in patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, retrieved all potentially relevant studies and extracted data.

RESULTS:

Fourteen eligible trials randomized 1514 patients. Studies were of moderate quality and showed variability in the results with potential publication bias. Meta-analyses using random-effects models suggested that flavonoids decrease the risk of not improving or persisting symptoms by 58 per cent (relative risk (RR) 0.42 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.28 to 0.61)) and showed an apparent reduction in the risk of bleeding (RR 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.19 to 0.57)), persistent pain (RR 0.35 (95 per cent c.i. 0.18 to 0.69)), itching (RR 0.65 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.97)) and recurrence (RR 0.53 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.69)).

CONCLUSION:

Limitations in methodological quality, heterogeneity and potential publication bias raise questions about the apparent beneficial effects of flavonoids in the treatment of haemorrhoids.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the safety and efficacy of procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) with Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (MMH) in the treatment of prolapsed hemorrhoids.

METHODS:

All the randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing PPH with MMH in the treatment of prolapsed hemorrhoids published between January 1998 and January 2015 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wangfang, VIP databases. Hand search was applied in Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chinese Journal of Coloproctology and Journal of Colorectal and Anal Surgery from the library of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Associated reference documents in enrolled trials were reviewed. The methodological quality of enrolled trials was evaluated according to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULT:

Sixteen RCTs recruiting 1411 patients were identified. Among them, 702 patients underwent PPH, and other 709 patients MMH. Meta-analysis showed that as compared to MMH, PPH had shorter operating time(WMD=-12.34, 95% CI.:-17.87 to -6.80, P=0.000], shorter hospital stay (WMD=-1.48, 95% CI.: -1.81 to -1.14, P=0.000) and shorter time to recover normal activity (WMD=-14.11, 95% CI.: -24.51 to -3.70, P=0.008). Patients in PPH group experienced less pain at postoperative 24 h, postoperative 1 week and the first postoperative bowel movement (all P<0.01). PPH was more ascendant in terms of the requirement for analgesics(P<0.01). PPH group had higher ratio of wound-healing 2 weeks after surgery (RR=0.19, 95% CI.: 0.07 to 0.51, P=0.001), lower ratio of postoperative anal stenosis (RR=0.39, 95% CI.: 0.15 to 0.99, P=0.050) and lower ratio of anal incontinence (RR=0.62, 95% CI.: 0.38 to 1.01, P=0.050), but higher ratio of recurrent disease after 1 year (RR=2.54, 95% CI.: 1.21 to 5.31, P=0.010). No significant differences in ratios of postoperative bleeding, urinary retention, and postoperative morbidity of complication were found(all P>0.05). Satisfaction degree of patients in PPH group was better than that in MMH group (OR=2.36, 95% CI.:1.36 to 4.07, P=0.002).

CONCLUSION:

Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids offers some short-term benefits over Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy, but is associated with a higher rate of recurrent disease.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to assess whether any method of hemorrhoid therapy has been shown to be superior in randomized, controlled trials.

METHOD:

A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized, controlled trials assessing two or more treatment modalities for symptomatic hemorrhoids. Outcome variables included response to therapy, need for further therapy, complications, and pain.

RESULTS:

A total of 18 trials were available for analysis. Hemorrhoidectomy was found to be significantly more effective than manual dilation of the anus (P = 0.0017), with less need for further therapy (P = 0.034), no significant difference in complications (P = 0.60), but significantly more pain (P < 0.0001). Patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy had a better response to treatment than did patients treated with rubber band ligation (P = 0.001), although complications were greater (P = 0.02) as was pain (P < 0.0001). Rubber band ligation was better than sclerotherapy in response to treatment for all hemorrhoids (P = 0.005) as well as for hemorrhoids stratified by grade (Grades 1 to 2; P = 0.007; Grade 3 hemorrhoids, P = 0.042), with no difference in the complication rate (P = 0.35). Patients treated with sclerotherapy (P = 0.031) or infrared coagulation (P = 0.0014) were more likely to require further therapy than those treated with rubber band ligation, although pain was greater after rubber band ligation (P = 0.03 for sclerotherapy; P < 0.0001 for infrared coagulation).

CONCLUSION:

Rubber band ligation is recommended as the initial mode of therapy for Grades 1 to 3 hemorrhoids. Although hemorrhoidectomy showed better response rates, it is associated with more complications and pain than rubber band ligation, thus should be reserved for patients who fail to respond to rubber band ligation.