A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease: The eTHoS study

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 21, Issue 70, 2017, Pages 1-223

  Watson, Angus J M ^a   Cook, Jonathan ^b   Hudson, Jemma ^c   Kilonzo, Mary ^d   Wood, Jessica ^c   Bruhn, Hanne ^c   Brown, Steven ^e   Buckley, Brian ^f   Curran, Finlay ^g   Jayne, David ^h   Loudon, Malcolm ⁱ   Rajagopal, Ramesh ^j   McDonald, Alison ^c   Norrie, John ^c  

^a RAIGMORE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

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

^f UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA   (Philippines)

^g MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^h LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ Belford Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^j GLAN CLWYD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONSTIPATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DISEASE DURATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEMORRHOID; HEMORRHOIDECTOMY; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LENGTH OF STAY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECTOVAGINAL FISTULA; RECTUM PERFORATION; RECURRENT DISEASE; SEPSIS; TREATMENT DURATION; URINE RETENTION; ADULT; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; SURGICAL STAPLING;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEMORRHOIDECTOMY; HEMORRHOIDS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURGICAL STAPLING;

EID: 85037657045     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta21700     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Watson AJM, Bruhn H, MacLeod K, McDonald A, McPherson G, Kilonzo M, 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 2014;15:439. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-439
2. Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, Weatherly H, Fox D, Golder S, et al. Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(8). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta12080
3. Jóhannsson HO, Graf W, Påhlman L. Long-term results of haemorrhoidectomy. Eur J Surg 2002;168:485-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/110241502321116505
4. Goligher J. Surgery of the Anus, Rectum and Colon. 5th edn. London: Bailliere Tindall; 1984.
5. NHS Digital. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care-England, 2006-07. 2007. URL: www.content.digital.nhs.uk/article/2021/Website-Search?productid=92&q=haemorrhoid +procedure&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=2&area=both#top (accessed 23 June 2016).
6. Thomson WH. The nature of haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 1975;62:542-52. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bjs.1800620710
7. Longo A. Treatment of Haemorrhoidal Disease by Reduction of Mucosa and Haemorrhoidal Prolapse with a Circular Suturing Device: A New Procedure. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery (IFSES), Bologna, Italy, 3-6 June 1998.
8. Lacerda-Filho A, Silva RG. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy: present status. Arq Gastroenterol 2005;42:191-4. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-28032005000300013
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 2008;95:147-60. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6078
10. Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PHD, 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 2007;50:1297-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10350-007-0308-4
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 2009;24:335-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-008-0611-0
12. Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PH, Malthaner RA. Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;4:CD005393. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005393.pub2
13. Thaha MA, Campbell KL, Kazmi SA, Irvine LA, Khalil A, Binnie NR, et al. Prospective randomised multi-centre trial comparing the clinical efficacy, safety and patient acceptability of circular stapled anopexy with closed diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Gut 2009;58:668-78. https://doi.org/10.1136/ gut.2008.151266
14. NICE. Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA128]. Chapter 6-Recommendations for Further Research. London: NICE; 2007. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA128/chapter/6-Recommendations-forfurther-research (accessed 23 September 2016).
15. Shanmugam V, Muthukumarasamy G, Cook JA, Vale L, Watson AJM, Loudon MA. Randomized controlled trial comparing rubber band ligation with stapled haemorrhoidopexy for Grade II circumferential haemorrhoids: long-term results. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:579-86. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01841.x
16. Brown SR, Tiernan JP, Watson AJM, Biggs K, Shephard N, Wailoo AJ, 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 2016;388:356-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30584-0
17. Nyström PO, Qvist N, Raahave D, Lindsey I, Mortensen N. Randomized clinical trial of symptom control after stapled anopexy or diathermy excision for haemorrhoid prolapse. Br J Surg 2010;97:167-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6804
18. Kim JS, Vashist YK, Thieltges S, Zehler O, Gawad KA, Yekebas EF, et al. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in circumferential third-degree hemorrhoids: long-term results of a randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2013;17:1292-8. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11605-013-2220-7
19. Ripetti V, La Vaccara V, Greco S, Arullani A. A randomized trial comparing stapled rectal mucosectomy versus open and semiclosed hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2015;58:1083-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000454
20. De Nardi P, Capretti G, Corsaro A, Staudacher C. A prospective, randomized trial comparing the short-and long-term results of Doppler-guided transanal hemorrhoid dearterialization with mucopexy versus excision hemorrhoidectomy for grade III hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:348-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000085
21. Lucarelli P, Picchio M, Caporossi M, De Angelis F, Di Filippo A, Stipa F, et al. Transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation with mucopexy versus stapler haemorrhoidopexy: a randomised trial with long-term follow-up. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013;95:246-51. https://doi.org/10.1308/ 003588413X13511609958136
22. Infantino A, Altomare DF, Bottini C, Bonanno M, Mancini S. Prospective randomized multicentre study comparing stapler haemorrhoidopexy with Doppler-guided transanal haemorrhoid dearterialization for third-degree haemorrhoids. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:205-11. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02628.x
23. Simillis C, Thoukididou SN, Slesser AA, 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 2015;102:1603-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9913
24. Great Britain. Data Protection Act 1998. London: The Stationery Office; 1998.
25. NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/ article/pmg9/chapter/5-The-reference-case (accessed 10 March 2016).
26. Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, Brown R, Buxton M, Chawla A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health 2005;8:521-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x
27. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2014 to 2015. London: Department of Health; 2007. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-collection-guidance-for-2014-to-2015 (accessed 13 October 2016).
28. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health of Social Care 2015. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2015. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2015/ (accessed 24 May 2016).
29. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2016. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com/about/publications.htm (accessed February 2016).
30. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2015.
31. HM Revenue & Customs. Travel-Mileage and Fuel Rates and Allowances. London: HM Revenue & Customs; 2013. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-travel-mileageand-fuel-allowances/travel-mileage-and-fuel-rates-and-allowances (accessed February 2016).
32. Office for National Statistics. Average Weekly Earning Time Series Dataset. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2017. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ earningsandworkinghours/datasets/averageweeklyearnings (accessed 23 May 2016).
33. NHS. Pay Review Body 29th Report: 2016. 2016. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/ national-health-service-pay-review-body-29th-report-2016 (accessed 25 May 2016).
34. Department for Transport. WebTAG: TAG Data Book, December 2015. 2015. URL: www.gov.uk/ government/publications/webtag-tag-data-book-december-2015 (accessed 23 May 2016).
35. Fader M, Cottenden A, Getliffe K, Gage H, Clarke-O’Neill S, Jamieson K, et al. Absorbent products for urinary/faecal incontinence: a comparative evaluation of key product designs. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(29). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta12290
36. EuroQol Group. Euroqol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
37. EuroLQoL Group. EQ-5D-3L User Guide-Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-3L Instrument. Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group; 2015. URL: www.euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 09/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2015.pdf (accessed 10 October 2016).
38. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. York: University of York; 1999. URL: www.york.ac.uk/che/publications/in-house/archive/1990s/ (accessed March 2016).
39. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Russell IT. SF-36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions. Qual Health Care 1994;3:186-92. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.3.4.186
40. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 2004;42:851-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d
41. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values: update of ice. Stata J 2005;5:527-36.
42. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing&. presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003;12:377-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.766
43. Earnshaw J, Lewis G. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective. PharmacoEconomics 2008;26:725-7. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00002
44. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
45. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::AID-HEC282>3.0.CO;2-W
46. Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:377-401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534
47. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:883-902. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x
48. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012;21:145-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1697
49. Adams J, Bateman B, Becker F, Cresswell T, Flynn D, McNaughton R, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(94). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19940
50. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics 2008;26:661-77. https://doi.org/10.2165/ 00019053-200826080-00004
51. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 2011;14:403-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
52. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. 9.2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2010. URL: support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010.pdf (accessed 15 March 2016).
53. Mott DJ, Najafzadeh M. Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decisionmaking? A case study using anticoagulant therapy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2016;16:33-9. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2016.1115722 (accessed March 2016).
54. Research Now. Market Research Solutions. 2016. URL: www.researchnow.com (accessed 10 October 2016).
55. Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 2007;16:827-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1197
56. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3:MR000008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4
57. Gates S, Williams MA, Withers E, Williamson E, Mt-Isa S, Lamb SE. Does a monetary incentive improve the response to a postal questionnaire in a randomised controlled trial? The MINT incentive study. Trials 2009;10:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-10-44
58. Brueton VC, Tierney J, Stenning S, Harding S, Meredith S, Nazareth I, et al. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;12:MR000032. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/14651858.MR000032.pub2
59. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, Williamson P. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials 2014;15:399. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-399
60. Glidewell L, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Bonetti D, Johnston M, Eccles MP, et al. Do incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response rates in postal questionnaires? two randomised controlled trials. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:250. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1472-6963-12-250
61. Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, et al. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(20).
62. King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, et al. Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess 2005;9(35) https://doi.org/10.3310/hta9350
63. Preference Collaborative Review Group. Patients’ preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ 2008;337:a1864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1864
64. Grant AM, Wileman SM, Ramsay CR, Mowat NA, Krukowski ZH, Heading RC, et al. Minimal access surgery compared with medical management for chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: UK collaborative randomised trial. BMJ 2008;337:a2664. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2664
65. Torgerson DJ, Klaber-Moffett J, Russell IT. Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:194-7.
66. Cockayne S, Curran M, Denby G, Hashmi F, Hewitt C, Hicks K, et al. EVerT: Cryotherapy versus salicylic acid for the treatment of verrucae-a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2011;15(32). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15320
67. Hardy GE, Barkham M, Shapiro DA, Reynolds S, Rees A, Stiles WB. Credibility and outcome of cognitive-behavioural and psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy. Br J Clin Psychol 1995;34:555-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1995.tb01489.x
68. Moffett JAK, Jackson DA, Richmond S, Hahn S, Coulton S, Farrin A, et al. Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients’ preference. BMJ 2005;330:75-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38286.493206.82
69. Thomas E, Croft PR, Paterson SM, Dziedzic K, Hay EM. What influences participants’ treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain. Br J Gen Pract 2004;54:93-6.
70. Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, Reid F, Nelson L, Smith ARB. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension-results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2006;113:1007-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01035.x
71. Cockayne S, Hicks K, Kangombe AR, Hewitt C, Concannon M, Thomas K, et al. The effect of patients’ preference on outcome in the EVerT cryotherapy versus salicylic acid for the treatment of plantar warts (verruca) trial. J Foot Ankle Surg 2012;5:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-5-28
72. Lehur PA, Didnée AS, Faucheron JL, Meurette G, Zerbib P, Siproudhis L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of new surgical treatments for hemorrhoidal disease: a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing transanal Doppler-guided hemorrhoidal artery ligation with monopexy and circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy. Ann Surg 2016;264:710-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001770
73. Cook JA, Hislop J, Adewuyi TE, Harrild K, Altman DG, Ramsay CR, et al. Assessing methods to specify the target difference for a randomised controlled trial: DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) review. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(28). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18280
74. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11136-004-7713-0
75. Shanmugam V, Watson AJ, Chapman AD, Binnie NR, Loudon MA. Pathological audit of stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Colorectal Dis 2005;7:172-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00748.x
76. McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, Heneghan C, Diener MK, IDEAL Group. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 2013;346:f3012. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.f3012
77. Cook JA, McCulloch P, Blazeby JM, Beard DJ, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A, IDEAL Group. IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. BMJ 2013;346:f2820. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2820
78. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009;374:1105-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
79. Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Abba J. Rectal perforation with life-threatening peritonitis following stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Br J Surg 2012;99:746-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7833