Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: Long-term Outcomes From the THDLIGA Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy are safe for grade III to IV hemorrhoid treatment. Whether one of them is superior regarding long-term results remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term results after transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 6 centers. PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age with grade III to IV hemorrhoids were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (n = 39) or vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy (n = 41). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was hemorrhoid symptom recurrence assessed by a specific questionnaire 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included long-term complications, reoperations, fecal continence, and patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: Five of the 80 patients included in the study were lost to follow-up. Thirty-six patients randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization and 39 patients randomly assigned to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy were included in the long-term analysis. The differences between mean baseline and mean 2-year score in the 2 groups were similar (-11.0, SD 3.8 vs -12.5, SD 3.6; p = 0.080). Three patients in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group underwent supplementary procedures for hemorrhoid symptoms, compared with none in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group ( p = 0.106). Four patients in the vessel-sealing hemorrhoidectomy group and none in the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization group experienced chronic opened wound ( p = 0.116). LIMITATIONS: Lack of stratification for hemorrhoid grade and power calculation based on the main outcome trial but not on the end point of this long-term study. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is associated with hemorrhoid symptom recurrence similar to vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy at 2 years. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; ID: NCT02654249. DESARTERIALIZACIN HEMORROIDAL TRANSANAL CON MUCOPEXIA VERSUS HEMORROIDECTOMA CON DISPOSITIVO DE SELLADO DE VASOS PARA HEMORROIDES DE GRADO IIIIV RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DEL ENSAYO CLNICO ALEATORIZADO THDLIGARCT: ANTECEDENTES:Tanto la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal como la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos son seguras y bien toleradas para el tratamiento de las hemorroides de grado III-IV. La primera se asocia con una necesidad más breve de analgesia posoperatoria que la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. No está claro si uno de ellos es superior con respecto a los resultados a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar los resultados a largo plazo después de la desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos.DISEÑO:Se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en 6 centros.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en el estudio pacientes de ≥18 años con hemorroides de grado III-IV.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados al azar a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal (n = 39) o hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (n = 41).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la recurrencia de los síntomas de hemorroides evaluada mediante un cuestionario específico 2 años después de la operación. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones a largo plazo, reoperaciones, continencia fecal, satisfacción del paciente y calidad de vida.RESULTADOS:Cinco de los 80 pacientes incluidos en el estudio se perdieron durante el seguimiento. En el análisis a largo plazo se incluyeron 36 pacientes aleatorizados a desarterialización hemorroidal transanal y 39 aleatorizados a hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos. Las diferencias entre la puntuación inicial media y la puntuación media a los 2 años en los dos grupos fueron similares (-11,0, DE 3,8 frente a -12,5, DE 3,6; p = 0,080). Tres pacientes en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal se sometieron a procedimientos complementarios por síntomas de hemorroides, en comparación con ninguno en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos (p = 0,106). Cuatro pacientes en el grupo de hemorroidectomía con sellado de vasos y ninguno en el grupo de desarterialización hemorroidal transanal experimentaron herida abierta crónica (p = 0,116). No se encontraron diferencias en cuanto a continencia fecal (p = 0,657), satisfacción del paciente (p = 0,483) y calidad de vida.LIMITACIONES:No hay estratificación para el grado de hemorroides ni el cálculo del poder basado en el resultado principal del ensayo, pero no en el criterio de valoración de este estudio a largo plazo.CONCLUSIONES:La desarterialización hemorroidal transanal con mucopexia se asocia con una recurrencia de síntomas de hemorroides similar a la hemorroidectomía con dispositivo de sellado de vasos a los dos años. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B933 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon )REGISTRO DE PRUEBA:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02654249).

Short-term Outcomes of Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy Versus Vessel-Sealing Device Hemorrhoidectomy for Grade III to IV Hemorrhoids: A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy seem to reduce postoperative pain compared with classic excisional hemorrhoidectomy, but whether one of them is superior remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We compared transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy and vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at 6 Spanish centers. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with grade III to IV hemorrhoids were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy (n = 39) or vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy (n = 41). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the mean postoperative number of days in which patients needed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, 30-day morbidity, patient satisfaction, Vaizey score, hemorrhoid symptoms score, return to work, and quality of life. RESULTS: More patients were still taking analgesia in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group during the second postoperative week compared with the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy group (87.8% vs 53.8%; p = 0.002). For the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy group, analgesia consumption continued until day 10.1 (mean; SD = 7.22 d), whereas in the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group it continued until day 15.2 (mean; SD = 8.70 d; p = 0.006). The mean daily average pain was similar during the first (p = 0.900) and second postoperative weeks (p = 0.265). Mean operative time was higher for the transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy group versus the vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy group (45 min; range, 40-60 vs 20 min; range, 15-41 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative complications rate, use of laxatives, patient satisfaction, Vaizey score, hemorrhoids symptoms score, return to work, and quality of life at 1 month after surgery were similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study was that the 2 groups did not contain equal numbers of grade III and IV hemorrhoids. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy is associated with a shorter need for postoperative analgesia compared with vessel-sealing device hemorrhoidectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A915. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02654249.

Multicentre cohort study of acute cholecystitis management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To analyse acute cholecystitis (AC) management during the first pandemic outbreak after the recommendations given by the surgical societies estimating: morbidity, length of hospital stay, mortality and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. METHODS: Multicentre-combined (retrospective-prospective) cohort study with AC patients in the Community of Madrid between 1st March and 30th May 2020. 257 AC patients were involved in 16 public hospital. Multivariant binomial logistic regression (MBLR) was applied to mortality. RESULTS: Of COVID-19 patients, 30 were diagnosed at admission and 12 patients were diagnosed during de admission or 30 days after discharge. In non-COVID-19 patients, antibiotic therapy was received in 61.3% of grade I AC and 40.6% of grade II AC. 52.4% of grade III AC were treated with percutaneous drainage (PD). Median hospital stay was 5 [3-8] days, which was higher in the non-surgical treatment group with 7.51 days (p < 0.001) and a 3.25% of mortality rate (p < 0.21). 93.3% of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.03), median hospital stay was 11.0 [7.5-27.5] days (p < 0.001) with a 7.5% of mortality rate (p > 0.05). In patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, 91.7% of grade I-II AC were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.037), with a median hospital stay of 16 [4-21] days and a 18.2% mortality rate (p > 0.05). Hospital-acquired infection risk when hospital stay is > 7 days is OR 4.7, CI 95% (1.3-16.6), p = 0.009. COVID-19 mortality rate was 11.9%, AC severity adjusted OR 5.64 (CI 95% 1.417-22.64). In MBLR analysis, age (OR 1.15, CI 95% 1.02-1.31), SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 14.49, CI 95% 1.33-157.81), conservative treatment failure (OR 8.2, CI 95% 1.34-50.49) and AC severity were associated with an increased odd of mortality. CONCLUSION: In our population, during COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase of non-surgical treatment which was accompanied by an increase of conservative treatment failure, morbidity and hospital stay length which may have led to an increased risk hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Age, SARS-CoV-2 infection, AC severity and conservative treatment failure were mortality risk factors.

¿Permiten la citología, el genotipado y la anoscopia de alta resolución establecer un protocolo para la detección precoz del carcinoma epidermoide de canal anal en población de riesgo? / Do cytology, genotyping, and high resolution anoscopy allow to establish a protocol for early detection of squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal in risk population?

Introducción: El cáncer anal ha experimentado un aumento de incidencia en los últimos años. Está mediado por el VPH y precedido de cambios precancerosos planteando la posibilidad de dirigir los esfuerzos preventivos hacia los grupos de alto riesgo. Sigue siendo controvertida la indicación de cribado y los métodos de detección ideales. Objetivo: Validar las pruebas de cribado implementadas en la actualidad comparadas con la biopsia como "gold standard". Material y Métodos: Estudio transversal con recogida de datos prospectiva, en una cohorte de hombres VIH+ que tienen sexo con hombres, pertenecientes al Hospital Gregorio Marañón e Infanta Leonor en un periodo de 2 años. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 179 pacientes con 286 visitas a la consulta de screening en las que se llevaron a cabo 3 pruebas de cribado en paralelo (citología anal, genotipado del VPH y anoscopia de alta resolución (AAR) con toma de biopsia dirigida sobre zona sospechosa o aleatoria). La sensibilidad y especificidad para la detección de displasia de alto grado y cáncer y su grado de concordancia con la biopsia fue la siguiente: citología 3,23%/94,43% (k: 0,03), genotipado de VPH de alto riesgo 90,32%/27,45% (k: 0,05), AAR 32,26%/87,45 (k: 0, 17) siendo el rendimiento diagnóstico de las tres pruebas muy bajo. Conclusión: La citología presenta un rendimiento diagnóstico muy bajo comparado con el genotipado que representa el mayor. A la luz de nuestros resultados, los protocolos clínicos tal y como vienen desarrollándose en la actualidad deberían de ser abandonados.

Introduction: The incidence of anal cancer has increased in recent years. It is mediated by HPV and preceded by precancerous changes, raising the possibility of directing preventive efforts towards high-risk groups. The indication of screening remains controversial and which methods would be the ideal ones. Objective: To validate the screening tests established actually, comparing it with the biopsy considered as the "gold standard". Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed, with prospective data collection in a cohort of VIH+ patients, who have male homosexual anal relations, belonging to Gregorio Marañón and Infanta Leonor Hospitals in a period of 2 years. Results: A total of 179 patients were selected with 286 visits to the screening Outpatient Clinic in which 3 parallel screening tests were performed (anal cytology, HPV genotyping and high resolution anoscopy (AAR) with a biopsy directed on a suspicious or random area). The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of high-grade dysplasia and cancer and their degree of agreement with the biopsy was as follows: cytology 3.23%/94.43% (k: 0.03), high HPV genotyping. risk 90.32%/27.45% (k: 0.05), AAR 32.26%/87.45 (k: 0, 17), the diagnostic accuracy of the three tests being very low. Conclusion: Cytology shows a very low diagnostic accuracy compared to the genotype that represents the highest one. In light of our results, clinical protocols as they are currently being developed should be abandoned.