ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Surg.
Sec. Colorectal and Proctological Surgery
This article is part of the Research TopicERAS Pathway in Proctology: The Impact on Hemorrhoids SurgeryView all 3 articles
Three-pedicle haemorrhoidectomy in the outpatient setting: the critical roles of information and organization
Provisionally accepted
- 1Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève (HUG), Genève, Switzerland
- 2Universite de Geneve, Geneva, Switzerland
- 3Groupe hospitalier Paris Saint-Joseph, Paris, France
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Three-pedicle haemorrhoidectomy (Milligan-Morgan) has traditionally raised concerns in outpatient settings due to postoperative pain and complications. Since 2015, we have performed this procedure on an outpatient basis. This study aimed to assess patients' views on such care. Methods: We retrospectively included patients who underwent outpatient haemorrhoidectomy at our centre in 2020. A satisfaction questionnaire was sent. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting good or excellent satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included hospital admissions, postoperative complications, and predictors of dissatisfaction. Ethics approval was obtained. Results: Among 392 patients, 292 underwent outpatient surgery (74%); 176 (60%) completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 52 ± 12 years; 64% were male. Good or excellent satisfaction was reported by 84% of respondents. Postoperatively, 9% required hospital admission, 48% contacted the hospital (nurse 52%, physician 48%) and 23% had unscheduled visits (clinic 65%, emergency department 35%). Complications occurred in 28% of cases, including discomfort, nausea, bleeding, urinary retention, and faecal impaction. Dissatisfaction was associated with poor preoperative explanations (surgeon p<0.0001, anaesthetist p=0.0005), complications (p = 0.0002), phone calls (p = 0.0016), and unscheduled visits (p = 0.0016). Multivariate analysis confirmed poor explanations by the surgeon (OR 0.08; p < 0.001) as an independent predictor. When asked, 79% said they would choose outpatient care again. Negative responses were independently associated with female sex (OR 0.33; p = 0.011), poor explanations (OR 0.11; p = 0.009) and unscheduled visits (OR 3.93; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Outpatient haemorrhoidectomy is acceptable to the majority of patients. However, thorough information and appropriate organisation are essential. As a result, 95% of these procedures are now performed on an outpatient basis at our centre.
Keywords: Ambulatory surgery, Haemorrhoidectomy, Organisational pathways, outpatient, Patient Satisfaction
Received: 17 Nov 2025; Accepted: 27 Jan 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Gialamas, Marone, Alam, FATHALLAH, Pommaret and de Parades. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Eleftherios Gialamas
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.