An approach to haemorrhoids

Objective  Many patients with haemorrhoids are investigated because of the fear of missing colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to determine whether a primarily clinical approach regarding the need for investigation was safe and did not miss patients with CRC. Patients and methods  Data was collected prospectively on 589 consecutive patients with the principle diagnosis of haemorrhoids at first clinic visit. All had clinical assessment including rigid sigmoidoscopy and were treated by phenol injection or banding. They were categorized for (1) no review unless symptoms persisted –‘One Stop SOS’ (2) outpatient review or (3) investigation. To check for the development of CRC they were contacted by postal questionnaire or telephone interview with a minimum of one year from diagnosis and treatment. All 589 patients were cross‐referenced with the Pathology database and the Hospital Information Services System. Results  Four hundred and sixty‐nine (80%) answered the questionnaire; 352 patients (60% of the total group) fell in the ‘one stop SOS’ outpatient category; 95 (16%) patients were followed up to review response to treatment for large haemorrhoids; 105 (18%) were investigated with barium enema (12%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (4%), colonoscopy (1%) and miscellaneous (1%); 37 (6%) patients were either given a haemorrhoidectomy date or referred on with a different diagnosis. No patients selected for ‘one‐stop’ treatment developed CRC. Five (0.8%) patients were diagnosed with CRC after appropriate investigation was instituted for suspicious symptoms. One patient with distal transverse colon cancer had a delayed diagnosis as she was investigated initially by flexible sigmoidoscopy. Conclusion  Most patients with the primary diagnosis of symptomatic haemorrhoids do not need investigation.