Skip to main content
Open access
Research Article
20 October 2020

The prevalence, characteristics and treatment of hemorrhoidal disease: results of an international web-based survey

Abstract

Background: This international study assessed the characteristics and treatment of individuals with hemorrhoids. Materials & methods: Online survey among nationally representative populations of adults from Brazil, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Russia and Spain, that identified participants who self-reported having hemorrhoidal disease. Results: Hemorrhoid prevalence was 11% (1725/16015); most respondents had low-severity disease (71%). Compared with the general population, participants with hemorrhoidal disease had more comorbidities (mean 3.1 vs 1.3) and included more women who had been pregnant (81 vs 68%). Common initial signs/symptoms were pain (60%), bleeding (47%) and discomfort (43%). Hemorrhoid respondents who consulted a physician were more likely to undergo interventions and take medications. Conclusion: The prevalence of hemorrhoidal disease in the adult population is 11%, mostly low-severity disease.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
1.
Acheson AG, Scholefield JH. Management of haemorrhoids. BMJ 336(7640), 380–383 (2008).
• Provides a review of the literature on the management of hemorrhoids.
2.
Lohsiriwat V. Hemorrhoids: from basic pathophysiology to clinical management. World J. Gastroenterol. 18(17), 2009–2017 (2012).
3.
Caglayan M, Turkoglu A, Oktayoglu P et al. Evaluation of the incidence of haemorrhoidal disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin. Rheumatol. 34(3), 511–514 (2015).
4.
Negri E, Pagano R, Decarli A, La Vecchia C. Body weight and the prevalence of chronic diseases. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 42(1), 24–29 (1988).
5.
Ravindranath GG, Rahul BG. Prevalence and risk factors of hemorrhoids: a study in a semi-urban centre. Int. J. Surg. 5(2), 496–499 (2018).
6.
Tournu G, Abramowitz L, Couffignal C et al. Prevalence of anal symptoms in general practice: a prospective study. BMC Fam. Pract. 18(1), 78 (2017).
7.
Abramowitz L, Benabderrahmane M, Pospait D, Philip J, Laouenan C. The prevalence of proctological symptoms amongst patients who see general practitioners in France. Eur. J. Gen. Pract. 20(4), 301–306 (2014).
8.
Johanson JF, Sonnenberg A. The prevalence of hemorrhoids and chronic constipation. An epidemiologic study. Gastroenterology 98(2), 380–386 (1990).
9.
Violan C, Foguet-Boreu Q, Hermosilla-Perez E et al. Comparison of the information provided by electronic health records data and a population health survey to estimate prevalence of selected health conditions and multimorbidity. BMC Public Health 13, 251 (2013).
10.
Asakura K, Nakano M, Omae K. Relationship between bidet toilet use and haemorrhoids and urogenital infections: a 3-year follow-up web survey. Epidemiol. Infect. 146(6), 763–770 (2018).
11.
Mao L, Ma L, Liu N et al. Self-reported health problems related to traditional dietary practices in postpartum women from urban, suburban and rural areas of Hubei province, China: the ‘zuo yuezi’. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 25(1), 158–164 (2016).
12.
Poskus T, Buzinskiene D, Drasutiene G et al. Haemorrhoids and anal fissures during pregnancy and after childbirth: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 121(13), 1666–1671 (2014).
13.
Jensen SL, Harling H, Arseth-Hansen P, Tange G. The natural history of symptomatic haemorrhoids. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 4(1), 41–44 (1989).
14.
Trilling JS, Robbins A, Meltzer D, Steinbardt S. Hemorrhoids: associated pathologic conditions in a family practice population. J. Am. Board Fam. Pract. 4(6), 389–394 (1991).
15.
Allen EN, Chandler CI, Mandimika N, Leisegang C, Barnes K. Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1, MR000039 (2018).
• This is a Cochrane systematic review of studies that compared various methods (open questions, checklist, interview) of eliciting adverse event information from clinical trial participants.
16.
Chrysant SG. Proactive compared with passive adverse event recognition: calcium channel blocker-associated edema. J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich) 10(9), 716–722 (2008).
17.
Clinical Practice Committee, American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoids. Gastroenterology 126(5), 1461–1462 (2004).
• Position statement of the American Gastroenterological Association on the diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoidal disease.
18.
Altomare DF, Roveran A, Pecorella G, Gaj F, Stortini E. The treatment of hemorrhoids: guidelines of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery. Tech. Coloproctol. 10(3), 181–186 (2006).
• Guidelines on the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease from the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery.
19.
Davis BR, Lee-Kong SA, Migaly J, Feingold DL, Steele SR. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hemorrhoids. Dis. Colon Rectum 61(3), 284–292 (2018).
• Guidelines on the management of hemorrhoidal disease from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.
20.
Rivadeneira DE, Steele SR, Ternent C, Chalasani S, Buie WD, Rafferty JL. Practice parameters for the management of hemorrhoids (revised 2010). Dis. Colon Rectum 54(9), 1059–1064 (2011).
21.
Van Tol RR, Kleijnen J, Watson AJM et al. European Society of ColoProctology: guideline for haemorrhoidal disease. Colorectal Dis. 22(6), 650–662 (2020).
• Clinical practice guidelines from the European Society of ColoProctology on the diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhoidal disease.
22.
Choi BC, Pak AW. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2(1), A13 (2005).
23.
Villalba H, Abbas MA. Hemorrhoids: modern remedies for an ancient disease. Perm. J. 11(2), 74–76 (2007).