Assessment of Level of Satisfaction, Pain, and Postoperative Healing in Patients Undergoing Outpatient Clinic CO2 Laser Anal Skin Tag Resection with Topical and Injectable Local Anesthesia

Abstract

The use of CO2 lasers in surgical procedures is well-established in medicine; however, data are still scarce in coloproctology, especially regarding anal skin tags.

Objectives

To assess the degree of satisfaction, pain, and postoperative healing in patients undergoing outpatient clinic CO2 laser anal skin tag resection with topical and injectable local anesthesia and its complications.

Methods

Prospective collection of data on patients with anal skin tags operated at a private clinic in São Paulo with topical and injectable local anesthesia and use of CO2 laser. The need for intraoperative stitches, opioids, and corticosteroids was assessed, as well as patient satisfaction and level of pain based on the analogue pain scale.

Results

39 patients were evaluated, of whom 36 (92.3%) were women. The main complaint was aesthetics (51.2%).

The average healing time was 3.7 + 1.8 weeks, and the average pain was 2.4 + 2.7. Six patients required stitches due to bleeding, and the presence of stitches did not increase the healing time or the need for opioids.

One patient presented with bleeding in the 1^st postoperative period and needed reintervention in a surgical facility, 2 presented with fissures, and 12 with residual skin tags. Thirty-eight patients were satisfied.

Conclusions

Anal skin tag resection with topical and injectable local anesthesia and CO2 laser is an effective and safe procedure at an outpatient level. Its advantages are low levels of postoperative pain, rapid healing, and low rates of serious complications with a high degree of patient satisfaction.

 

MissingLinkText

Keywords

CO2 Lasers - laser surgery - colorectal surgery - anus diseases - anal fissure - hemorrhoidal disease

Introduction

The use of different types of laser in surgical procedures is well established in several areas of medicine, with Obstetrics and Gynecology standing out, to treat vulvovaginal atrophy,[1] [2] outpatient aesthetic surgeries such as nymphoplasty[3] [4] and genitourinary symptoms of post-menopause.[2] [4] [5] [6] Additionally, lasers have been gaining space and recognition in other fields, such as coloproctology, where they can be safe and feasible if correctly used in anorectal procedures, such as hemorrhoidectomy, anal fissure correction, skin tag resection, pilonidal cyst and HPV treatmen[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Several studies show that the use of laser has entailed a considerable decrease in the time for the patients to resume their basic day-to-day activities, a decreased rate of postoperative infections, less postoperative pain and lower use of painkillers, in comparison with widely used traditional surgical techniques.

Furthermore, in 2017 Dessily et. al described outpatient laser treatment, with loco-regional anesthesia and promising results, with a low rate of recurrence (2.9%) and considerably shorter recovery time.[8]

However, even though there already is evidence of the benefits of the use of laser in coloproctology,[7] [8] [9] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [20] anal skin tag is a condition seldom explored in literature with regard to new techniques.

This is a prevalent condition among the population and even though it is often not given the due attention by the doctors themselves, it may generate great harm to the patient's quality of life, either due to aesthetic or functional reasons (hygiene difficulties, discomfort during physical activities, itchiness, among others).

As it is a benign condition, characterized by an excess of skin in the anal area, this procedure can be performed in an outpatient manner, with no need for admission, which decreases the expenses for the patient and generates greater comfort, not requiring hospital admission procedures.

Thus, due to the scarcity of papers concerning the use of CO2 laser for anal skin tag with local anesthesia, the purpose of this work is to demonstrate that it is possible to carry out anal skin tag resection as an outpatient procedure, with combined anesthesia, which presents an excellent degree of patient satisfaction, low pain in the postoperative period, rapid recovery in the postoperative period and a low level of late and early complications.

 

MissingLinkText

Objectives

Primary Objective

To assess the degree of postoperative satisfaction, pain, and healing in patients that have undergone outpatient clinic anal skin tag resection with CO2 laser and topical and injectable local anesthesia.

 

MissingLinkText

Secondary Objective

Demographic evaluation of the sample, as well as intraoperative parameters (need for stitches) and acute and chronic complications in the postoperative period (bleeding, residual skin tag, residual fissure, and need for reintervention).

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Methods

Longitudinal prospective studies. The patients evaluated were operated on by a single doctor as an outpatient procedure, at a private clinic in São Paulo, with topical and injectable local anesthesia and CO2 laser with a preestablished surgical technique. Patients were followed to assess the degree of satisfaction, pain and postoperative healing.

Population

This study evaluated patients operated on at a private clinic in the central region of São Paulo, from December 2021 to November 2023. Patients with anal skin tags were selected, who underwent an outpatient surgical procedure with CO2 laser.

Demographic data (age, sex), reason for the surgery (aesthetic or functional), primary disease, intraoperative details (need for stitching), pain during the postoperative period, need for use of opioids during the postoperative period or intramuscular corticoid during the postoperative period, time of healing of the surgical wound, local complications, complications with or without the need for acute or late reintervention and degree of satisfaction of the patients in relation to the main complaint were assessed.

All data were collected and recorded in an anonymous database (RedCap).

 

MissingLinkText

Exclusion Criteria

Patients who underwent the procedure jointly with the application of botulinum toxin or diode laser were excluded.

 

MissingLinkText

Surgical Technique

As it is an outpatient surgery, the first phase of the procedure consisted of topic anesthesia with lidocaine 23% and tetracaine 7% cream 1 hour prior to the positioning of the patient, with subsequent injectable anesthesia with lidocaine 2% with a vasoconstrictor.

All procedures were performed in lithotomy, under an aseptic technique, without systemic sedation.

The second phase of the procedure consisted of the resection of the skin tag, after delimiting the area to be resected.

The decision regarding the need for stitches during the intraoperative period varied according to the bleeding and the resected area, with the thread used being absorbable (poliglecaprone 25 or polyglactin 910).

 

MissingLinkText

Definitions

A successful surgery was defined as that which was performed at the clinic, in an outpatient manner, with no difficulties with the anesthesia or the resection of the skin tag.

Morbidity includes all acute (impossibility of topic anesthesia and bleeding) and chronic (anal fissure, chronic pain, residual skin tag with need for reintervention) postoperative complications within 48 hours.

The assessment of the patients' pain scale was done based on the Visual Analogue Scale ([Fig. 1]) and all patients were actively asked about the use of medication during the follow-up appointments.

Fig. 1 Visual Analogue Scale for Pain.

The follow-up on such patients was done 7, 15, 30, 45 and 60 days into the postoperative period, with the last one being optional, according to the patient complications and his or her complaints. At said appointments, pain, the use of opioids or intramuscular corticoids, return to work and degree of patient satisfaction were assessed, in addition to the physical coloproctological examination.

 

MissingLinkText

Statistical Analysis

Data were collected and recorded in an anonymous database (RedCap).

The database was analyzed with the SPSS program, with assistance from a statistician, using Student's t-test, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney test (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) (p < 0.05).

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Results

40 patients were included, but one patient asked to be excluded from the study. Thus, 39 patients were evaluated, of whom 36 (92.3%) were female. The average age of said patients was 37.46 (± 10), a median of 37 ([Table 1]).

Table 1 Nominal variables - epidemiology

Nominal variables	N (%)
Gender
Male	3 (7.7)
Female	36 (92.3)
Age (year)
Average	37.46 ± 10
Median	37
Complaint
Aesthetic	20 (51.2)
Hygiene difficulty	9 (23.1)
Prolapse	7 (17.9)
Others	3 (7.8)
Healing Time (weeks)
Average	3.7 ± 1.8
Median	3
Postoperative Pain
Average	2.3 ± 2.7
Median	2
Use of opioids
Yes	4(10)
No	35 (90)
Complications
Yes	15 (38.5)
No	24 (61.5)

Twenty (51.2%) of them had aesthetic complaints, 9 (23.1%) hygiene difficulties and 7 prolapse (17.9%). The others had other complaints, such as bleeding or pain.

The total healing time was 3.7 (± 1.8) weeks and the patients who used injectable corticoid had a healing time 25% greater than the patients who did not use it (4.17 × 3.31), p = 0.15, as shown in [Table 2].

Table 2 Quantitative variables – Healing time in weeks

Variables	Healing time in weeks	p < 0.05
Use of Injectable Corticoid		0.15
Yes	4.17 ± 2
No	3.31 ± 1.6
Need for Intraoperative Stitches		0.87
Yes	3.66 ± 1.96
No	3.69 ± 1.81
Complications		0.003
Yes	4.93 ± 1.94
No	2.91 ± 1.21

The patients' average pain was 2.3 (± 2.7) and there was no correlation with the patient's sex. The average pain of the patients who required intraoperative stitches was 5.16, three times greater than the patients who did not require stitches (1.87) p = 0.006. These data can be seen in [Table 3].

Table 3 Quantitative Variables – Average postoperative pain

Variables	Average postoperative pain	p < 0.05
Need for Intraoperative Stitches		0.0062
Yes	5.16 ± 2.6
No	1.87 ± 1
Need for Injectable Corticoid during the Postoperative Period		0.058
Yes	3.23 ± 3.23
No	1.72 ± 2.99
Need for Opioid during the Postoperative Period		0.002
Yes	7.75 ± 2.5
No	1.87 ± 2.05
Complications		0.123
Yes	3.33 ± 3.15
No	1.79 ± 2.3

Six patients required stitches due to bleeding (5 in external hemorrhoidal and 1 on the skin) and there was no difference in the healing time of patients who did and did not require intraoperative stitches (3.66 × 3.69) p = 0.871. Of these, 4 (66.6%) required injectable corticoids in the postoperative period due to pain, and 2 due to postoperative edema. In total, 15 patients used injectable corticoid in the postoperative period, 5 (12.8%) due to postoperative pain, and 10 (25.6%) due to edema in the first postoperative follow-up appointment. The patients who used injectable corticoid had twice as much pain as those who did not (3.23 × 1.72). p = 0.058.

Two patients who required intraoperative stitches used opioids, but there was no correlation with the increase in the use of opioids due to the stitches p = 0.105. However, the average pain level of the patients who required opioids was 4 times higher than those who did not (7.75 × 1.87) p = 0.002.

Three patients used injectable corticoids and opioids in the postoperative period, 2 due to postoperative pain, and 1 due to edema in the follow-up appointment.

Regarding postoperative complications, 1 patient had an early complication with bleeding in the 1st postoperative appointment and required a reintervention at a surgical facility (2.6%), two presented with fissures (5.1%) with a healing time longer than 4 weeks, and 12 with residual skin tag (30.8%) of whom 8 had a healing time longer than 4 weeks and, out of these, three requested a reintervention for resection of the residual skin tag for aesthetic reasons, as seen from [Table 4]. The longer the healing time, the greater the risk of complications p = 0.003, with the average healing time of the patients with complications being 4.93 ± 1.94 and without complications 2.91 ± 1.21 weeks.

Table 4 Qualitative Variables – Complications

Variables	N (%)
Complications	N (%)
Yes	15 (38)
No	24 (62)
Type of Complication
Acute	1 (7)
Chronic	14 (93)
Chronic Complications
Residual Skin Tag	12 (86)
Anal Fissure	2 (14)
Need for Reintervention
Acute	1 (25)
Chronic	3 (75)

There was no correlation between increased pain and postoperative complications (p = 0.123), with the average pain being 3.33 ± 3.15 in patients with complications and 1.79 ± 2.3 in patients without complications.

Regarding the degree of patient satisfaction, 38 (97.5%) were satisfied and 1 (2.5%) was partially satisfied, even after a reintervention to resect the residual skin tag.

 

MissingLinkText

Discussion

Treatments for vulvovaginal atrophy,[1] genitourinary symptom of post-menopause[2] [4] [5] and outpatient aesthetic surgeries such as nymphoplasty[3]are some examples of the use of lasers in medicine, and the benefits are established. In coloproctology, different types of lasers have been gaining space and recognition, where they can be safe and feasible if correctly used in anorectal procedures, such as hemorrhoidectomy, anal fissure correction, skin tag resection, pilonidal cyst and HPV treatment.[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Hemorrhoidal disease is a common surgical issue that affects 39% of the world population[22] during people's lives and different surgical treatments[14] [15] [22] [23] are available. Mostly due to postoperative pain, different modalities, such as laser, arose as alternatives, which can be performed as outpatient procedures with local anesthesia or at surgical facilities.[11] [12] [13] [23]

A little explored condition in literature about new techniques is the anal skin tag. Even though it is often not given due attention by the doctors themselves, this is a condition that may generate great harm to the patient's quality of life, either due to aesthetic or functional reasons (hygiene difficulties, discomfort during physical activities, itchiness, among others).

This study demonstrated a low level of pain during the postoperative period in patients that underwent anal skin tag resection with CO2 laser and topic anesthesia, with only 10% of the patients requiring the use of opioids for pain management, with an average pain of 2.3 according to the visual analogue scale. These data match the results for hemorrhoidectomies with CO2 laser, with less pain during the postoperative period, faster healing, lower rate of stenosis, and less sphincter damage, in addition to being a less invasive procedure, which can be repeated several times.[18]

In this study, the worsening of the postoperative pain had a statistically significant correlation with the need for stitches. However, they were necessary in a minority of patients, either due to hemorrhoidal nipple bleeding or due to a large extent of resected skin.

Furthermore, an average healing time of 3.7 weeks was observed. Even though the time it took patients to return to work was not recorded, most of them resumed early. This observation agrees with other coloproctology studies, which demonstrate that with the use of laser, a considerable decrease in the patients' time to return to their basic daily activities was noted, which was 7 days, in addition to a decrease in the rates of postoperative infections.[11] [12] [13] [14] [16] [18]

The association between a low level of pain and a short healing time reinforces the possibility of an early return to work in the postoperative period.

Moreover, the current study presented low rates of complication, showing that it is possible to carry out the procedure in an outpatient manner, with the topic anesthesia and safety, given that there was only 1 acute complication with the need for reintervention. The only patient that required intervention presented with hemorrhoidal thrombosis with moderate bleeding 24 hours after the procedure was performed, with the new operation being recommended to be performed at a surgical facility.

These data reinforce the safety of the use of laser, already demonstrated in other coloproctological conditions, such as in 2017, when Dessily et. al described the outpatient laser treatment of pilonidal cysts with loco-regional anesthesia and promising results, with the rate of recurrence being low (2.9%) and the recovery time considerably shorter.[8]

This is an important consideration, given all the difficulties scheduling procedures at surgical facilities, either due to issues with health insurance, surgical scheduling, prior surgeries running late, or even evaluating the comfort of the patient, who is quickly discharged after the procedure with no need for admission, fasting, etc.

Furthermore, about chronic complications, even though the data shows a rate of 35.9% of chronicity, with 2 anal fissures and 12 residual skin tags, only 3 patients with skin tags opted for a reintervention.

Since 97.5% of patients were satisfied and only 2.5% were partially satisfied, it can be inferred that there is probably a bias in the assessment by the coloproctologist, who overestimates the presence of residual skin tags in his or her assessment, being more perfectionist than the patients themselves.

 

MissingLinkText

Limitations of the Study

Even though all patients were operated on with a CO2 laser, the devices sent were defined by the company that let them. Therefore, since old devices were used in many of the procedures, it was not possible to determine the total quantity of power used.

Moreover, even though the maximum dose of injectable anesthetic was not exceeded in any of the procedures, the individually used dose was not calculated, since it was used on demand, which could interfere with the postoperative pain.

 

MissingLinkText

Conclusions

The anal skin tag resection with topic anesthesia and CO2 laser is an effective and safe procedure at an outpatient level, with no need for admission. Its advantages are low levels of pain during the postoperative period, rapid healing, and a low rate of serious complications, with a high degree of patient satisfaction.

 

MissingLinkText

 

MissingLinkText

Conflict of Interest

None.

Authors' Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing of the articles, and final version to be published. All authors agree and take responsibility for the content of this version of the manuscript to be published.

Approval by the Ethics Committee

CAAE (Ethical Appraisal Submission Certificate): 74822623.0.0000.5492

• References

• 1 Benini V, Ruffolo AF, Casiraghi A. et al New Innovations for the Treatment of Vulvovaginal Atrophy: An Up-to-Date Review. Medicina (Lithuania) 2022; 58 (06)
• 2 Florencio-Silva R, Simões RS, Girão JHRC, Carbonel AAF, Teixeira Cde P, Sasso Gda S. Tratamento da atrofia vaginal da mulher na pós-menopausa. Reproducao e Climaterio 2017; 32 (01) 43-47
• 3 Bizjak-Ogrinc U, Senčar S. Sutureless Laser Labiaplasty of Labia Minora. Sex Med 2021; 9 (05) 100406
• 4 Preti M, Vieira-Baptista P, Digesu GA. et al. The clinical role of LASER for vulvar and vaginal treatments in gynecology and female urology: An ICS/ISSVD best practice consensus document. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38 (03) 1009-1023
• 5 Bubna C, D'Hanens C, Ferreira K, Pasquini Neto R. Vieira F de A, Novellino AM de M. Use of laser and radiofrequency for genitourinary syndrome of menopause: do Brazilian women know it? / Laser e rádio frequência como opções terapêuticas na síndrome geniturinária da menopausa: as mulheres brasileiras conhecem?. Brazilian Journal of Health Review 2022; 5 (04) 13179-13188
• 6 Gaspar A, Brandi H, Gomez V, Luque D. Efficacy of Erbium:YAG laser treatment compared to topical estriol treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Lasers Surg Med 2017; 49 (02) 160-168
• 7 Harju J, Söderlund F, Yrjönen A, Santos A, Hermunen K. Pilonidal disease treatment by radial laser surgery (FiLaC™): The first Finnish experience. Scand J Surg 2021; 110 (04) 520-523
• 8 Dessily M, Charara F, Ralea S, Allé JL. Pilonidal sinus destruction with a radial laser probe: technique and first Belgian experience. Acta Chir Belg 2017; 117 (03) 164-168
• 9 De Carvalho AL, Filho EFA, De Alcantara RSM, Barreto Mda S. FILAC – Fistula – Tract laser closure: A sphincter-preserving procedure for the treatment of complex anal fistulas. J Coloproctol (Rio J) 2017; 37 (02) 160-162
• 10 Giamundo P, Esercizio L, Geraci M, Tibaldi L, Valente M. Fistula-tract Laser Closure (FiLaC™): long-term results and new operative strategies. Tech Coloproctol 2015; 19 (08) 449-453
• 11 Longchamp G, Liot E, Meyer J, Toso C, Buchs NC, Ris F. Non-excisional laser therapies for hemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature. Lasers Med Sci 2021; 36 (03) 485-496
• 12 Maloku H, Gashi Z, Lazovic R, Islami H, Juniku-Shkololli A. Laser hemorrhoidoplasty procedure vs open surgical hemorrhoidectomy: A trial comparing 2 treatments for hemorrhoids of third and fourth degree. Acta Inform Med 2014; 22 (06) 365-367
• 13 Olajide TO, Balogun OS, Bode CO, Atoyebi OA. Challenges and prospects of laser haemorrhoidoplasty in a low resource setting: The Luth experience. J West Afr Coll Surg 2023; 13 (03) 96-100
• 14 Yousefianzadeh O, Dehghani A, Kargar S, Nikfard M, Dehghan HR. . D S A D D A S D MEDICAL REVIEWS Systematic Review Minimally Invasive Laser Surgery vs. Common Techniques for Hemorrhoid Treatment: Technology Assessment. Published online 2023. doi:10.30491/IJMR.2023.410856.1263
• 15 Cengiz TB, Gorgun E. Hemorrhoids: A range of treatments. Cleve Clin J Med 2019; 86 (09) 612-620
• 16 Harvitkar RU, Gattupalli GB, Bylapudi SK. The Laser Therapy for Hemorrhoidal Disease: A Prospective Study. Cureus 2021; 13 (11) e19497
• 17 Alsisy A, Alkhateep Y, Salem I. Comparative study between intrahemorrhoidal diode laser treatment and Milligan–Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. Menoufia Med J 2019; 32 (02) 560
• 18 Chia YW, Darzi A, Speakman CTM, Hill ADK, Jameson JS, Henry MM. C Ol6 e/al Dmease CO2 Laser Haemorrhoidectomy-Does It Alter Anorectal Function or Decrease Pain Compared to Conventional Haemorrhoidectomy? Vol 10.; 1995
• 19 Iranmanesh B, Khalili M, Zartab H, Amiri R, Aflatoonian M. Laser therapy in cutaneous and genital warts: A review article. Dermatol Ther 2021; 34 (01) e14671
• 20 Close S. PILONIDAL CYSTS: AN ANALYSIS OF SURGICAL FAILURES* A
• 21 Pandini LC, Nahas SC, Nahas CSR, Marques CFS, Sobrado CW, Kiss DR. Surgical treatment of haemorrhoidal disease with CO2 laser and Milligan-Morgan cold scalpel technique. Colorectal Dis 2006; 8 (07) 592-595
• 22 Yeo D, Tan KY. Hemorrhoidectomy - making sense of the surgical options. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20 (45) 16976-16983
• 23 de Freitas MOS, Santos JAD, Figueiredo MFS, Sampaio CA. Analysis of the main surgical techniques for hemorrhoids. J Coloproctol (Rio J) 2016; 36 (02) 104-114

Publication History

Received: 13 June 2024

Accepted: 25 November 2024

Article published online:
12 March 2025