| Contributors: |
Brillantino, A.; Renzi, A.; Talento, P.; Brusciano, L.; Marano, L.; Grillo, M.; Maglio, M. N.; Foroni, F.; Palumbo, A.; Sotelo, M. L. S.; Vicenzo, L.; Lanza, M.; Frezza, G.; Antropoli, M.; Gambardella, C.; Monaco, L.; Ferrante, I.; Izzo, D.; Giordano, A.; Pinto, M.; Fantini, C.; Gasparrini, M.; Di Visconte, M. S.; Milazzo, F.; Ferreri, G.; Braini, A.; Cocozza, U.; Pezzatini, M.; Gianfreda, V.; Di Leo, A.; Landolfi, V.; Favetta, U.; Agradi, S.; Marino, G.; Varriale, M.; Mongardini, M.; Pagano, C. E. F. A.; Contul, R. B.; Gallese, N.; Ucchino, G.; D'Ambra, M.; Rizzato, R.; Sarzo, G.; Masci, B.; Da Pozzo, F.; Ascanelli, S.; Liguori, P.; Pezzolla, A.; Iacobellis, F.; Boriani, E.; Cudazzo, E.; Babic, F.; Geremia, C.; Bussotti, A.; Cicconi, M.; Di Sarno, A.; Mongardini, F. M.; Brescia, A.; Lenisa, L.; Mistrangelo, M.; Zuin, M.; Mozzon, M.; Chiriatti, A. P.; Bottino, V.; Ferronetti, A.; Rispoli, C.; Carbone, L.; Calabro, G.; Tirro, A.; de Vito, D.; Ioia, G.; Lamanna, G. L.; Asciore, L.; Greco, E.; Bianchi, P.; D'Oriano, G.; Stazi, A.; Antonacci, N.; Di Renzo, R. M.; Poto, G. E.; Ferulano, G. P.; Longo, A.; Docimo, L. |
| Description: |
The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia, SIUCP) on the diagnosis and management of hemorrhoidal disease, with the goal of guiding physicians in the choice of the best treatment option. A panel of experts was charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key questions on the main topics related to the management of hemorrhoidal disease and to perform an accurate and comprehensive literature search on each topic, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in multiple rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) criteria, and the statements were developed adopting the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. In cases of grade 1 hemorrhoidal prolapse, outpatient procedures including hemorrhoidal laser procedure and sclerotherapy may be considered the preferred surgical options. For grade 2 prolapse, nonexcisional procedures including outpatient treatments, hemorrhoidal artery ligation and mucopexy, laser hemorrhoidoplasty, the Rafaelo procedure, and stapled hemorrhoidopexy may represent the first-line treatment options, whereas excisional surgery may be considered in selected cases. In cases of grades 3 and 4, stapled hemorrhoidopexy and hemorrhoidectomy may represent the most effective procedures, even if, in the expert panel opinion, stapled hemorrhoidopexy represents the gold-standard treatment for grade 3 hemorrhoidal prolapse. |