Aim The goal of this European Society of ColoProctology project was to establish a multidisciplinary, international guideline for haemorrhoidal disease (HD) and to provide guidance on the most effective (surgical) treatment for patients with HD. Methods The development process consisted of six phases. In phase one we defined the scope of the guideline. The patient population included patients with all stages of haemorrhoids. The target group for the guideline was all practitioners treating patients with haemorrhoids and, in addition, healthcare workers and patients who desired information regarding the treatment management of HD. The guideline needed to address both the diagnosis of and the therapeutic modalities for HD. Phase two consisted of the compilation of the guideline development group (GDG). All clinical members needed to have affinity with the diagnosis and treatment of haemorrhoids. Further, attention was paid to the geographical distribution of the clinicians. Each GDG member identified at least one patient in their country who could read English to comment on the draft guideline. In phase three review questions were formulated, using a reversed process, starting with possible recommendations based on the GDG’s knowledge. In phase four a literature search was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search was focused on existing systematic reviews addressing each review question, supplemented by other studies published after the time frame covered by the systematic reviews. In phase five data of the included papers were extracted by the surgical resident (RT) and checked by the methodologist (JK) and the GDG. If needed, meta‐analysis of the systematic reviews was updated by the surgical resident and the methodologist using Review Manager. During phase six the GDG members decided what recommendations could be made based on the evidence found in the literature using GRADE. Results There were six sections: (i) symptoms, diagnosis and classification; (ii) basic treatment; (iii) outpatient procedures; (iv) surgical interventions; (v) special situations; (vi) other surgical techniques. Thirty‐four recommendations were formulated. Conclusion This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date and evidence based summary of the current knowledge of the management of HD and may serve as a useful guide for patients and clinicians.

Hemorrhoids are a common medical problem that is often considered as benign. The French Society of Colo-Proctology (Société nationale française de colo-proctologie [SNFCP]) recently revised its recommendations for the management of hemorrhoids (last issued in 2001), based on the literature and consensual expert opinion. We present a short report of these recommendations. Briefly, medical treatment, including dietary fiber, should always be proposed in first intention and instrumental treatment only if medical treatment fails, except in grade ≥III prolapse. Surgery should be the last resort, and the patient well informed of the surgical alternatives, including the possibility of elective ambulatory surgery, if appropriate. Postoperative pain should be prevented by the systematic implementation of a pudendal block and multimodal use of analgesics.

Day-case haemorrhoidal surgery can be performed whatever the surgical procedure. Postoperative pain deserves special prevention measures after haemorrhoidectomy, especially by using perineal block or infiltrations. Urinary retention is a common issue that can be responsible for failure; it requires a preventive strategy including short duration spinal anaesthesia. Doppler-guided haemorrhoidal artery ligation is easy to perform in outpatients but deserves more complete evaluation in this setting.

Chronic constipation is a common symptom that regularly affects the quality of life of adult patients. Its treatment is mainly based on dietary rules, laxative drugs, perineal rehabilitation and surgical treatment. The French National Society of Coloproctology offers clinical practice recommendations on the basis of the data in the current literature, including those on recently developed treatments. Most are noninvasive, and the main concepts include the following: stimulant laxatives are now considered safe drugs and can be more easily prescribed as a second-line treatment; biofeedback therapy remains the gold standard for the treatment of anorectal dyssynergia that is resistant to medical treatment; transanal irrigation is the second-line treatment of choice in patients with neurological diseases, but it may also be proposed for patients without neurological diseases; and although interferential therapy may be a new promising treatment, it needs further evaluation.

Anal fissure is an ulceration of the anoderm in the anal canal. Its pathogenesis is due to multiple factors: mechanical trauma, sphincter spasm, and ischemia. Treatment must address these causative factors. While American and British scientific societies have published recommendations, there is no formal treatment consensus in France. Medical treatment is non-specific, aimed at softening the stool and facilitating regular bowel movements; this results in healing of almost 50% of acute anal fissures. The risk of recurrent fissure remains high if the causative factors persist. If non-specific medical treatment fails, specific medical treatment can be offered to reversibly decrease hypertonic sphincter spasm. Surgery remains the most effective long-term treatment and should be offered for cases of chronic or complicated anal fissure but also for acute anal fissure with severe pain or for recurrent fissure despite optimal medical treatment. Surgical treatment is based on two principles that may be combined: decreasing sphincter tone and excision of the anal fissure. Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is the best-evaluated technique and remains the gold standard in English-speaking countries. Since LIS is associated with some risk of irreversible anal incontinence, its use is controversial in France where fissurectomy combined with anoplasty is preferred. Other techniques have been described to reduce the risk of incontinence (calibrated sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty). The technique of forcible uncalibrated anal dilatation is no longer recommended.