Long-term outcomes of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: An updated systematic review, meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Purpose Stapled 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). Methods MEDLINE, 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. Results Seventeen 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 2 = 48%). TSA showed that the accrued information size (1,913 patients) did not reach the required information size (2,608 patients), indicating that current evidence remains underpowered. Prolapse-related recurrence was significantly more frequent after SH (RR = 3.28,95%CI = 1.49–7.25;I 2 = 12%), whereas bleeding-related recurrence did not differ between groups (RR = 1.20,95%CI = 0.63–2.26;I 2 = 23%). No significant differences were found for reintervention, persistent anal pain, functional impairment or QoL. Conclusion SH 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.