Stapled hemorrhoidopexy is a safe technique for the treatment of hemorrhoids but carries a significantly higher incidence of recurrences and additional operations compared with CH. It is the patient's choice whether to accept a higher recurrence rate to take advantage of the short-term benefits of SH.

Intestinal stomal complications are common, occurring in almost half of patients. There are certain irremediable risk factors, allowing appropriate preoperative counselling.

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to compare short- and medium-term outcomes of transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation (THD) versus stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) for the treatment of second- and third-degree haemorrhoids.MethodsPatients with second- or third-degree haemorrhoids who failed conservative treatment were randomly allocated to THD or SH. Preoperative and postoperative symptoms, postoperative pain, time until return to normal activities, complications, patient satisfaction and recurrence rates were all assessed prospectively. Patients were followed up at 2, 8 months and when the study was completed.ResultsTwenty-eight patients (43% third degree) underwent THD and 24 (38% third degree) underwent SH. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain, expected pain and analgesia requirements, but more THD patients returned to work within 4 days (P < 0.05). One THD patient developed a sub-mucosal haematoma after surgery, one SH patient occlusion of the rectal lumen and two rectal bleeding. At 8-month follow-up, two SH patients complained of faecal urgency. At 38-month follow-up (range 33–48 months), all short-term complications resolved. Patient satisfaction (“excellent/good outcome”, THD 89 vs. SH 87%) and recurrence rate (THD 14 vs. SH 13%) were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsShort-term results although similar seem to suggest SH may result in increased morbidity while return to work is quicker after THD. Medium-term results demonstrate that THD and SH have similar effectiveness.

In selected patients, local excision of rectal cancer may be an alternative to radical surgery such as abdominoperineal excision of the rectum or anterior resection. Local excision carries lower mortality and morbidity, without the functional disturbance or alteration in body image that can be associated with radical surgery. There are several techniques of local therapy for rectal cancer, with most experience being available in transanal excision. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is also used but experience with this newer technique is limited. Patient selection is the most important factor in successful local excision, however specific criteria for selecting patients have not been universally accepted. Review of the published literature is difficult because of the variation in adjuvant therapy regimes and follow-up strategies, as well as results reported in terms of local recurrence and survival rates. There is increasing evidence to suggest that local excision should be restricted to patients with T1 stage rectal cancer without high-risk factors. The place for local excision in patients with T2 or high-risk T1 tumours requires prospective, randomised multi-centre trials comparing radical surgery with local excision, with or without adjuvant therapy.