SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Long-term outcomes of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: An updated systematic review, meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) offers well-established short-term advantages over conventional haemorrhoidectomy (CH), but its long-term effectiveness remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare long-term outcomes of SH versus CH in adult patients with grade II-IV haemorrhoids, incorporating Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA).
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 2001 to October 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SH and CH with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment (RoB-2). Primary outcomes included recurrence, reintervention, anal function, and quality of life (QoL). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. TSA was applied to overall recurrence.
resultsSeventeen RCTs including 1,041 SH and 1,031 CH patients were analysed. SH was associated with a higher risk of overall recurrence compared with CH (RR = 1.56,95%CI = 1.00-2.44;I
conclusionSH is associated with a higher risk of long-term recurrence, particularly prolapse-related recurrence, compared with CH, while long-term pain, functional outcomes and QoL appear broadly comparable. These findings suggest that, although SH may remain an option for selected patients, CH provides more durable anatomical correction, and procedural choice should balance early recovery against long-term durability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.