Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of metronidazole in post-haemorrhoidectomy pain relief.

AIM: Conventional haemorrhoidectomy is still considered the reference standard for the management of severe or recurrent haemorrhoids. Pain is reported by patients to be the most common postoperative complication. Although the literature lacks a consensus on its effectiveness, metronidazole is often used to reduce postoperative pain. We have performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of metronidazole for pain relief after haemorrhoidectomy. METHOD: A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA protocol using the MESH headings 'haemorrhoidectomy', 'hemorhoidectomy', 'hemorrhoidectomy', 'haemorrhoid', 'metronidazole', 'Flagyl® ' 'antibiotic' and 'pain'. The search returned 421 articles of which eight were RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review with a total population of 437 patients. The outcomes of interest were postoperative pain intensity on days 1, 2 and 7 and on first defaecation as measured using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative pain for patients treated with metronidazole with a reduced mean difference for the metronidazole group on day 1 of -1.42 (95% CI: -2.14 to -0.69, P = 0.0001), on day 2 of -1.43 (95% CI: -2.45 to -0.40, P = 0.006) and on day 7 of -2.40 (95% CI: -3.10 to -1.71, P < 0.00001). Pain on first defaecation was likewise reduced with a mean difference of -1.38 (95% CI: -2.15 to -0.60, P = 0.0005). Limitations of this study include variation in the grade of haemorrhoids treated and variability in the quality of included studies. CONCLUSION: Metronidazole is a cheap, safe and effective intervention for reducing postoperative pain following conventional haemorrhoidectomy.

Recurrent symptoms after stapled haemorrhoidopexy and the impact on patient satisfaction after a minimum of 2 years follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Stapled haemorrhoidopexy came as an attractive alternative to treat grade 3 haemorrhoids. This study aims to assess the nature of recurrent symptoms and the impact on patient satisfaction after a minimum follow-up of two years in a group of patients who underwent stapled haemorrhoidopexy. METHODS: A standardized questionnaire was used to evaluate a consecutive group of patients by telephone treated by a stapled haemorrhoidopexy between January 2004 and December 2007. Outcome assessment comprised residual symptoms, subsequent treatment, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Hundred sixty-five patients underwent a stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the study period. Twenty-five patients (15%) were lost to follow-up. The included 140 patients presented with grade 2 (16) or grade 3 (124) prolapsing internal haemorrhoids. Median age was 50 years (range 27-79) and 56% were males. Median follow-up was 43 months (range 25-87). At final follow-up, 79 patients (56%) remained symptom-free. Nevertheless, 89% were more than satisfied. Only 11% were disappointed with the ultimate outcome. Recurrent symptoms were prolapse (52 patients), anal bleeding (46 patients), anal pressure or pain (24 patients) and pruritus (21 patients). Thirty-five patients had subsequent therapy: 20 underwent surgical resection and 15 had sclerotherapy or rubber band ligation. Patient satisfaction correlates with the number of recurrent (residual) symptoms and the need for further treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite the high symptomatic recurrence rate after stapled haemorrhoidopexy, 89% of patients were satisfied. This suggests that recurrent or residual symptoms after stapled haemorrhoidopexy are often less severe compared to the initial presenting symptoms.

Prophylactic mesh use during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia.

Introduction Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common problem following stoma formation. The optimal technique for stoma formation is unknown although recent studies have focused on whether placement of prophylactic mesh at stoma formation can reduce PSH rates. The aim of this study was to systematically review use of prophylactic mesh versus no mesh with regard to occurrence of PSH and peristomal complications. Methods A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase™ and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials that analysed placement of prophylactic mesh versus no mesh at time of initial surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects methods. Results A total of 506 studies were identified by our search strategy. Of these, 8 studies were included, involving 430 patients (217 mesh vs 213 no mesh). Prophylactic mesh placement resulted in a significantly lower rate of PSH formation (42/217 [19.4%] vs 92/213 [43.2%]) with a combined risk ratio of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-0.75, p=0.004). Placement of prophylactic mesh did not result in increased peristomal complications (15/218 [6.9%] vs 16/227 [7.0%]) with a combined risk ratio of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.49-2.01, p=0.990). Conclusions Prophylactic placement of mesh at primary stoma formation may reduce the incidence of PSH, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, the overall quality of the randomised controlled trials included in the meta-analysis was poor, and should prompt caution regarding the applicability of the findings of the individual studies and the meta-analysis to everyday practice.