A comparison of surgical devices for grade II and III hemorrhoidal disease. Results from the LigaLongo Trial comparing transanal Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with mucopexy and circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy

Purpose Little is presently known on the impact of device type for Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation/mucopexy (DGHAL) or circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) when a surgical treatment is considered for hemorrhoidal disease (HD). In this study, we aimed to compare the outcome in terms of adverse events and recurrence rate, of patients included in the multicenter LigaLongo RCT ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01240772) according to the type of devices used. Methods In the DGHAL arm ( N = 193), the procedure was done with transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD)™ (THD, Correggio, Italy) (104 patients) and with HAL-RAR™ (Agency for Medical Innovations (AMI) GmbH, Feldkirch, Austria) (89 patients). In the CSH arm ( N = 184), procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH)-03™ (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati OH) and hemorrhoidopexy and prolapse (HEM)™ (Covidien, Inc.) staplers were used in respectively 106 and 78 cases. Surgery-related morbidity at 90 postoperative days (POD) based on the Clavien-Dindo procedure-related complication score and clinical outcome in terms of recurrence and reoperation rate at 12 postoperative months (POM) was collected. Results Three hundred and seventy-seven patients were randomized according to HD grade. In the DGHAL arm, the number of ligations and mucopexies was higher in the AMI group ( p