Most people decide what to do about this long before they call anyone, usually from pages written to sell a product. These are written to be read by someone who has not booked and may not need to.
The pages that rank for this subject are mostly either hospital explainers or sites selling something. The explainers are good and we will not outrank them. The sales pages quote a single success rate and a single price, and both are invented.
So these guides do the part neither of those does: say what is actually known, say plainly where the published sources disagree with each other, and say when the honest answer is not a procedure at all. The evidence guide is the clearest example of that.
They are also deliberately not a diagnostic tool. Matching your symptoms to a page is how people talk themselves out of getting bleeding looked at, and that is the one mistake this subject genuinely punishes. The red flags page exists for exactly that reason, and the symptoms hub starts from the same place.
Our Montreal guides
How to use them
Reading these Montreal hemorrhoid guides well
Start with grades
Almost every decision here follows from the grade, so the guide on grading is the one that makes the others make sense.
Then the comparisons
Banding against surgery, and creams against procedures. These are the two decisions people actually face.
Do not self-diagnose
Matching your symptoms to a page is the one thing these are not for. Bleeding gets looked at, not matched.
Bring the questions in
Whatever a guide left you unsure about is a good use of the first ten minutes of a consultation.
Our guides
Every Montreal hemorrhoid guide we publish
Twelve guides on how grading works, what actually prevents recurrence, and how the treatment options compare.
What these guides are for, and what they deliberately refuse to tell you.
No, and please do not try. The guides explain mechanisms and options; a hemorrhoid, a fissure and a skin tag are separated by examination, not by reading. Bleeding especially needs looking at.
Published clinical sources, cited where a specific claim depends on one. Where two sources give different numbers, both are given rather than the more convenient one. Hospital explainers and peer-reviewed reviews, not provider marketing.
Because for mild cases more fibre, more fluid and less time straining genuinely is the answer, and a procedure would be treating something that was going to settle anyway.
Because providers publish ninety, ninety-five and ninety-nine percent for the same procedure, all self-reported. Picking one would be marketing, so none of them appears. A figure you cannot check is not information.
Yes. They are written to be readable by someone without a clinical background while still being accurate enough that a clinician will not have to correct them.
They are revised when the sources behind them change. Where a claim rests on one review or one guideline, that is named in the guide so you can check it yourself.
The guides
Why these run longer than most
Written for patients
Plain language, but not simplified to the point of being wrong. Where a thing is genuinely uncertain, the guide says so.
Limits left in
Each guide says what its approach does not fix, which is the part sales pages leave out entirely.
Comparisons kept fair
Where two options compete, both sides get their actual case made rather than one being set up to lose.
No booking required
Several of these end by telling you not to book anything, because for mild cases that is the honest answer.
