Erratum: Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (The Lancet (2016) 388(10058) (2375–2385) (S0140673616318037) (10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31803-7));Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

The Lancet

Volumn 388, Issue 10058, 2016, Pages 2375-2385

  Watson, Angus J M ^a   Hudson, Jemma ^b   Wood, Jessica ^b   Kilonzo, Mary ^b   Brown, Steven R ^c   McDonald, Alison ^b   Norrie, John ^b   Bruhn, Hanne ^b   Cook, Jonathan A ^d  

^a RAIGMORE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANUS SURGERY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEMORRHOID; HEMORRHOIDECTOMY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OPEN STUDY; PARALLEL DESIGN; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TRADITIONAL EXCISIONAL SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEMORRHOIDS; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARDS; SURGICAL STAPLING; TIME FACTOR;

ADULT; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEMORRHOIDECTOMY; HEMORRHOIDS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURGICAL STAPLING; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84992199679     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32059-1     Document Type: Erratum

References (31)

1. 1 Riss, S, Weiser, FA, Schwameis, K, et al. The prevalence of hemorrhoids in adults. Int J Colorectal Dis 27 (2012), 215–220.
2. 2 Johanson, JF, Sonnenberg, A, The prevalence of hemorrhoids and chronic constipation. An epidemiologic study. Gastroenterology 98 (1990), 380–386.
3. 3 Goligher, JC, Surgery of the anus, rectum, and colon, 5th edn., 1984, Bailliere Tindall, London, 993–996.
4. 4 NHS, IC, Hospital episode statistics (procedure search). 2004–05. http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID-676 (accessed July 31, 2016).
5. 5 Lacerda-Filho, A, Da Silva, RG, Stapled hemorrhoidectomy: present status. Arq Gastroenterol 42 (2005), 191–194.
6. 6 Nisar, PJ, Acheson, AG, Neal, KR, Scholefield, JH, Stapled hemorrhoidopexy compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy: Systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 47 (2004), 1837–1845.
7. 7 Burch, J, Epstein, D, Baba-Akbari, A, et al. Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 12 (2008), iii–107.
8. 8 Lumb, KJ, Colquhoun, PH, Malthaner, R, Jayaraman, S, Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4, 2006 CD005393.
9. 9 Shao, WJ, Li, GC, Zhang, ZH, Yang, BL, Sun, GD, Chen, YQ, Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 95 (2008), 147–160.
10. 10 Simillis, C, Thoukididou, SN, Slesser, AAP, Rasheed, S, Tan, E, Tekkis, PP, Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes and effectiveness of surgical treatments for haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 102 (2015), 1603–1618.
11. 11 Laughlan, K, Jayne, DG, Jackson, D, Rupprecht, F, Ribaric, G, Stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared to Milligan–Morgan and Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 24 (2009), 335–344.
12. 12 Jayaraman, S, Colquhoun, PH, Malthaner, RA, Stapled hemorrhoidopexy is associated with a higher long-term recurrence rate of internal hemorrhoids compared with conventional excisional hemorrhoid surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 50 (2007), 1297–1305.
13. 13 Luque, A, Junqueira Junior, SM, Oliveira, FM, Oliveira, D, Cabra, HA, Stapled haemorrhoidopexy to treat hemorrhoids grade III and IV: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health, 18, 2015, A807.
14. 14 Brown, SR, Tiernan, JP, Watson, AJM, et al. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids (HubBLe): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388 (2016), 356–364.
15. 15 Watson, AJM, Bruhn, H, MacLeod, K, et al. A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy to traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 15, 2014, 439.
16. 16 EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16 (1990), 199–208.
17. 17 Jorge, JMN, Wexner, SD, Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36 (1993), 77–97.
18. 18 Shanmugam, V, Muthukumarasamy, G, Cook, JA, Vale, L, Watson, AJ, Loudon, MA, Randomized controlled trial comparing rubber band ligation with stapled haemorrhoidopexy for Grade II circumferential haemorrhoids: long-term results. Colorectal Dis 12 (2010), 579–586.
19. 19 Milligan, ETC, Naunton Morgan, C, Jones, L, Officer, R, Surgical anatomy of the anal canal, and the operative treatment of haemorrhoids. Lancet 230 (1937), 1119–1124.
20. 20 Ferguson, JA, Mazier, WP, Ganchrow, MI, Friend, WG, The closed technique of hemorrhoidectomy. Surgery 70 (1971), 480–484.
21. 21 Royston, P, Multiple imputation of missing values: Further update of ice, with an emphasis on categorical variables. Stata J 9 (2009), 466–477.
22. 22 Department of Health. NHS Reference costs 2014 to 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2014-to-2015 (accessed Feb 15, 2016).
23. 23 NICE 2013. Process methods and guide: Guide to methods of technology appraisal. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/chapter/5-the-reference-case, 2013 (accessed March 10, 2016).
24. 24 Cook, JA, Hislop, J, Adewuyi, TE, et al. Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. Health Technol Assess, 2014 published online May http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta18280.
25. 25 Walters, SJ, Brazier, JE, Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14 (2005), 1523–1532.
26. 26 Jóhannsson HÖ, Graf, W, Påhlman, L, Long-term results of haemorrhoidectomy. Eur J Surg 168 (2002), 485–489.
27. 27 Shanmugam, V, Watson, AJM, Chapman, AD, Binnie, NR, Loudon, MA, Pathological audit of stapled haemorhoidopexy. Colorectal Dis 7 (2005), 172–175.
28. 28 McCulloch, P, Cook, JA, Altman, DG, Heneghan, C, Diener, MK, IDEAL Group. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ, 346, 2013, f3012.
29. 29 Cook, JA, McCulloch, P, Blazeby, JM, et al. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ, 346, 2013, f2820.
30. 30 McCulloch, P, Altman, DG, Campbell, WB, for the Balliol Collaboration. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL Recommendations. Lancet 374 (2009), 1105–1112.
31. 31 Faucheron, JL, Voirin, D, Abba, J, Rectal perforation with life-threatening peritonitis following stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Br J Surg 99 (2012), 746–753.