Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Hemorrhoidectomy”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Double-blind, randomized trial comparing Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy, bipolar scissors hemorrhoidectomy, and scissors excision: ligation technique.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients receiving hemorrhoidectomy using Harmonic Scalpel, bipolar scissors, and the conventional scissors excision-ligation technique. METHODS: Eighty-six patients with irreducible prolapsing piles were randomly assigned to receive 1) Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy using scissors excision-ligation technique or 2) bipolar scissors hemorrhoidectomy and Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy. Neither the patient nor the independent assessor were aware of the technique used at operation. Patients were followed up at 4 and 12 weeks after operation. The measured outcomes included 1) operation time; 2) blood loss; 3) postoperative hospital stay; 4) pain score; 5) pain expectation score; 6) date of first bowel movement; 7) number of pethidine injections; 8) number of dologesic tablets taken; 9) time off work or normal activity; 10) wound healing; 11) satisfaction score; and 12) postoperative complications, including anal stenosis and fecal or flatus incontinence. RESULTS: There was no difference among the three groups in the operation time, hospital stay, pain expectation score, day of first bowel movement, number of dologesic tablets taken, time off work or normal activity, wound healing, and satisfaction score. The complication rate also did not differ in the three groups. Both Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy and bipolar scissors hemorrhoidectomy were superior to Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in terms of reduced blood loss. Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy had the best pain score when compared with bipolar scissors hemorrhoidectomy and Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy, and patients required significantly less pethidine injection after Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy than after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. Although the time required to return to work or normal activity remained similar, patients after Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy had the best satisfaction score among the three groups. CONCLUSION: The study shows that Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy is as good as bipolar scissors hemorrhoidectomy in terms of reduced blood loss but is superior because it is associated with less postoperative pain and hence, better patient satisfaction. However, these observed benefits are small, and the time off work or normal activity remains similar.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2002

A prospective randomized comparison between an open hemorrhoidectomy and a semi-closed (semi-open) hemorrhoidectomy.

A semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy is a popular surgical procedure among Japanese coloproctologists because it is thought that the risk of postoperative bleeding is reduced, and postoperative pain is milder after a semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy than after an open hemorrhoidectomy. However, no prospective randomized trial comparing an open and semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy has yet been published. We conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing both clinically and physiologically an open and semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy. Thirty-four consecutive patients undergoing a hemorrhoidectomy for third-degree hemorrhoids were randomized to receive either an open hemorrhoidectomy (n = 17) or a semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy (n = 17). Postoperative pain was evaluated using an analog scale by the patients themselves. An anorectal physiological study was performed before the operation and 2 months after the operation. Pain at 1 week after operation was significantly more severe after a semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy than after an open hemorrhoidectomy. The postoperative physiological parameters including sphincter pressures did not differ between the two forms of hemorrhoidectomy. However, younger patients and patients having higher sphincter pressures preoperatively had more severe pain at 2 weeks after a semi-closed hemorrhoidectomy. Although both forms of hemorrhoidectomy appear to be almost equivalent, the degree of early postoperative pain may be less after an open hemorrhoidectomy in both young patients and in those patients having high preoperative anal sphincter pressures.

Anal Canal↗
PubMed2003

A randomized, controlled trial of diathermy hemorrhoidectomy vs. stapled hemorrhoidectomy in an intended day-care setting with longer-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: Hemorrhoidectomy is the most effective long-term treatment for hemorrhoids. Although it is possible to perform hemorrhoidectomy as a day case with a high degree of patient satisfaction, patients take an average of 14 days off work after surgery. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is believed to be less painful than conventional hemorrhoidectomy and should allow an earlier return to work. The aim of this study was to compare both the immediate and the long-term results of stapled hemorrhoidectomy with diathermy hemorrhoidectomy in patients with prolapsing internal hemorrhoids in an intended day-care setting. METHODS: Thirty-one patients were randomly assigned to undergo diathermy hemorrhoidectomy (n = 16) or stapled hemorrhoidectomy performed with a purpose-designed endoluminal stapling device, PPH01T (n = 15). All operations were planned as day or short-stay cases. All patients received lactulose, commenced preoperatively, together with postoperative topical glyceryl trinitrate and oral metronidazole. Patients were assessed by structured interview to assess their symptoms before and after surgery, with an intended follow-up of six months. All patients completed a 10-cm visual analog pain scale daily for the first ten days after surgery. RESULTS: The total pain score (sum of all pain scores) was significantly higher in the diathermy group (50 (range, 9.8-79.9) vs. 19.6 (range, 1.3-89.5), P = 0.03). Patients took a median of 14 (range, 3-21) days off work after diathermy hemorrhoidectomy compared with 10 (range, 3-38) days for the patients undergoing stapled hemorrhoidectomy (P = 0.15). At long-term follow-up, three patients (all in the stapled group) developed new symptoms of fecal urgency and anal pain, and three patients required further surgery to remove symptomatic external hemorrhoids after stapled hemorrhoidectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although stapled hemorrhoidectomy is less painful in the short term, this does not lead to a significantly earlier return to work, and some patients develop new symptoms at long-term follow-up.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids: prospective, randomized trial comparing closed excisional hemorrhoidectomy and the Harmonic Scalpel technique of excisional hemorrhoidectomy.

PURPOSE: The object of this study was to evaluate technique using the ultrasonically activated scalpel as an alternative to closed hemorrhoidectomy in an unbiased evaluation of this new technology. METHODS: Thirty patients with Grade 2 or 3 symptomatic hemorrhoids were prospectively randomized to undergo closed hemorrhoidectomy assisted by electrocautery or hemorrhoidectomy with the ultrasonically activated scalpel, i.e., the Harmonic Scalpel. We evaluated the difference between techniques in operative time, postoperative pain, incontinence, and quality of life (using the Short Form-36 survey), as well as complications. RESULTS: Mean operative time for closed hemorrhoidectomy with electrocautery was 35.7 +/- 3 minutes; for Harmonic Scalpel patients, it was 31.7 +/- 2 minutes (P < 0.37). There was no statistical difference in operative time for two- or three-column hemorrhoidectomy. There was no significant difference in pain measurements reported on Day 1 (5.8 +/- 0.4 for electrocautery and 5.6 +/- 0.6 for Harmonic Scalpel, P < 0.82). On postoperative Day 7, the difference in pain between groups approached significance, with pain reported as 3.7 +/- 0.3 for electrocautery and 5.1 +/- 0.7 for Harmonic Scalpel(R) (P < 0.06). At six weeks, both groups were pain free. There was a significant decrease in pain between postoperative Days 1 and 7 in the electrocautery patients that was not seen in the Harmonic Scalpel patients. Incontinence measured preoperatively, at postoperative Day 7, and at postoperative Week 6 was similar for both groups and reflected occasional incontinence of gas. When the various items of the Short Form-36 survey were compared, there was no significant difference between posttreatment and preoperative values. There was no difference in the number of complications between patient groups. CONCLUSION: Although the Harmonic Scalpel is an effective tool in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease, we found no specific advantage in postoperative pain, fecal incontinence, operative time, quality of life, or complications compared with traditional closed hemorrhoidectomy.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: long-term results and patient satisfaction after Ferguson's hemorrhoidectomy.

PURPOSE: Perioperative morbidity and long-term results after hemorrhoidectomy (Ferguson's technique) were evaluated as a basis for comparison with new methods such as stapled hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: All records of patients who underwent conventional hemorrhoidectomy between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 1997 (five years) were retrospectively analyzed. The surgical technique was Ferguson closed hemorrhoidectomy. Long-term results were evaluated with a standardized questionnaire that was sent to all patients. RESULTS: Five-hundred-fourteen patients (195 female, 319 male) with a mean age of 52 (range, 22-96) years were evaluated. Postoperatively, seven patients had a relevant hemorrhage, and two had to undergo reoperation (reoperation rate within 30 days, 0.4 percent). In 15 cases (3 percent) patients received urinary catheters for postoperative urinary retention. Mortality was 0 percent. The questionnaire was returned by 403 patients (78.4 percent). The mean follow-up was 4.7 (range, 2.1-7.8) years. The leading symptom was relieved in 275 patients (67.4 percent), ameliorated in 111 (27.2 percent), and unchanged or worse in 22 (5.4 percent). Incontinence (soiling) was not present in 291 (71.7 percent) patients, light in 86 (21.2 percent), moderate in 25 (6.1 percent), and severe in 4 (0.98 percent). Reoperation rate for recurrent hemorrhoids was 0.8 percent. Patients evaluated the surgical result as excellent in 286 (70.5 percent) cases, good in 87 (21.4 percent), moderate in 25 (6.2 percent), and bad in 8 (1.9 percent) cases. CONCLUSION: Ferguson closed hemorrhoidectomy results in very low rates of perioperative morbidity. Long-term results demonstrate high patient satisfaction and low incontinence and reoperation rates. It could be the gold standard to which other techniques are compared.

Adult↗
PubMed1977

Hemorrhoidectomy--how I do it: experience with the St. Mark's Hospital technique for emergency hemorrhoidectomy.

Eighty-five patients who had thrombosed hemorrhoids underwent emergency hemorrhoidectomy according to St. Mark's Hospital technique, with very good results. All specimens were found to have dilated blood vessels filled with thrombi of different sizes, with irregular, fibrotic or hyalinized vascular walls. Early complications included urinary retention and painful defecation in some patients. Late complications included only skin tags. No sepsis was found among our patients. Although operative bleeding can be tedious during the hemorrhoidectomy, it was a complication in the postoperative period of only one patient. Segmental, open hemorrhoidectomy performed according to the St. Mark's Hospital technique has been shown to be an ideal operation for the treatment of patients who have hemorrhoidal thrombosis, prolapse, edema, and bleeding.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Simple harmonic scalpel hemorrhoidectomy utilizing local anesthesia combined with intravenous sedation: a safe and rapid alternative to conventional hemorrhoidectomy.

BACKGROUND: Harmonic Scalpel(R) hemorrhoidectomy (HSH) is an established surgical therapy for the treatment of symptomatic grade III and IV hemorrhoids. Hemorrhoid surgery is still being performed as an inpatient procedure with general or regional anesthesia in many centers today. There was a trend toward performing hemorrhoid surgery as an ambulatory procedure using local anesthesia supplemented with intravenous sedation. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HSH performed with combination local anesthesia and intravenous sedation in an ambulatory surgical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on the clinical charts of all patients undergoing HSH in an ambulatory surgical center from 2001 to 2005. All hemorrhoidectomies were attempted under propofol/ketamine intravenous sedation and local anesthesia in the prone position. A simple, open technique without routine suture was used. RESULTS: During the study period, 180 patients (70 females) underwent HSM. Mean procedure and total operating room time were 12 and 28 min, respectively. One patient (0.6%) was converted to general endotracheal anesthesia. Ten patients (5.6%) required post anesthesia care unit (PACU) observation. All patients were discharged home after the procedure. Postoperative complications occurred in 19 patients (10.6%). There were no reoperations and the total readmission rate was 3.7%. CONCLUSION: HSH performed with a combination of intravenous sedation and local anesthesia is safe and effective in the ambulatory surgery setting. The combined technique was associated with a rate of complications comparable to published series utilizing conventional hemorrhoidectomy techniques. Added benefits include shorter hospital stay and a potential for cost savings.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

Hemorrhoidectomy and sphincterotomy. A prospective study comparing the effectiveness of anal stretch and sphincterotomy in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy.

The effectiveness of two maneuvers, anal stretch (group 1) and sphincterotomy (group 2), were evaluated in reducing posthemorrhoidectomy pain. The study included 133 patients in group 1 and 125 patients in group 2. Immediate follow-up results showed that 18.4 percent of patients in group 2 required narcotic analgesics in the first 24 hours as compared with 100 percent of group 1 patients (P less than .01). Urinary retention developed in 4 percent of the patients in group 2 and 39 percent of the patients in group 1 (P less than .01). Pain associated with the first postoperative motion was severe in 96.2 percent of those in group 1 as compared with 6.4 percent of patients from group 2 (P less than .01). Moreover, long-term follow-up showed that 57.3 percent of group 1 patients continued to suffer from fecal soiling for ten weeks as compared with 6.4 percent in group 2 who suffered only 4.5 weeks (P less than .01). The routine performance of sphincterotomy through one of the hemorrhoidectomy wounds significantly reduced posthemorrhoidectomy pain and complications.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Hemorrhoidectomy with stapler vs. traditional hemorrhoidectomy: comparative outcome of 2 groups of patients].

Authors compare the results of two groups of patients, with III and IV degree haemorrhoids. The first group (48 patients) were treated with traditional surgery, open or closed. The second group (42 patients) treated with stapling haemorrhoidectomy. The groups were compared in order to determine if a true advantage exists regarding post-operative pain and functional recovery. Authors conclude that stapler haemorrhoidectomy, is somehow better in reducing the pain and offers a quick functional recovery. But the technique must be adopted in selected patients with mucosal prolapse, when the haemorrhoidal plexus is below the dentate line. In those cases, with inveterate mucosal prolapse, and thickened external fibrous tissue, or an irreducible prolapse of the external haemorrhoidal plexus, the choice must be carefully evaluated.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Early experience of stapled hemorrhoidectomy in a community hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy was introduced as a new procedure for the surgical management of hemorrhoidal disease in 1993. We present a cohort longitudinal study performed in a community hospital setting where the short-term outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidectomy were compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: We compared 41 consecutive patients who underwent a conventional open diathermy (Ferguson) hemorrhoidectomy between September 1999 and September 2001 with 40 consecutive patients who underwent a stapled hemorrhoidectomy procedure between September 2001 and June 2004. We analyzed perioperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction and case costing for both groups. RESULTS: The stapled hemorrhoidectomy group comprised 13 men and 27 women. The open hemorrhoidectomy group comprised 9 men and 32 women. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. In the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group, 3 patients presented with postoperative complications and 3 required admission. In the open hemorrhoidectomy group, 14 patients presented with postoperative complications and 11 required admission. At 2-week follow-up, 35 patients (88%) presented no complaints in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group, versus 27 (66%) in the open hemorrhoidectomy group. The total cost calculated for the stapled hemorrhoidectomy procedure was dollar 716.38, whereas the total cost of the open hemorrhoidectomy procedure was dollar 760.00. CONCLUSIONS: The stapled hemorrhoidectomy technique is a safe alternative to the traditional open hemorrhoidectomy. It can be performed as an outpatient procedure, is well tolerated by patients and is no more expensive than conventional surgical therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Stapled vs excision hemorrhoidectomy: long-term results of a prospective randomized trial.

HYPOTHESIS: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy offers several advantages over excision hemorrhoidectomy, including reduced postoperative pain, a reduced hospital stay, and an earlier recovery time. Furthermore, stapled hemorrhoidectomy is associated with lower hemorrhoidal recurrence on long-term follow-up. DESIGN: A randomized prospective trial. Patients were blinded to the operation technique used. Follow-up occurred at 1 and 3 weeks and 12 months postoperatively. SETTING: A university hospital providing primary, secondary, and tertiary care. PATIENTS: Forty patients with second- and third-degree hemorrhoid disease were randomized to undergo either stapled or excision hemorrhoidectomy. Two patients were excluded. All patients were subject to a follow-up examination. INTERVENTIONS: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy (Longo technique) vs excision hemorrhoidectomy (Ferguson technique). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operating time, postoperative pain (measured by the visual analog scale), hospital stay, histologic features, morbidity, defecation habit, continence, recovery time (return to work), and hemorrhoid recurrence at 1 year. RESULTS: Stapled vs excision hemorrhoidectomy was associated with a significantly reduced operating time (30 vs 43.25 minutes; P<.001), reduced postoperative pain scores (visual analog score) on the first 4 postoperative days (day 1: 2.7 vs 6.3; day 2: 1.7 vs 6.3; day 3: 0.8 vs 5.4; and day 4: 0.5 vs 4.8, where 0 indicates no pain, and 10, maximum pain; P < or = .001), and an earlier return to work (6.7 vs 20.7 days;P =.001). There were no differences for stapled vs excision hemorrhoidectomy in length of hospital stay (2.4 vs 2.1 days), complications (3 [15%] of 20 patients vs 5 [25%] of 20 patients), and recurrence rate (1 [5%] of 20 patients vs 1 [5%] of 20 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is associated with reduced postoperative pain, earlier recovery time and return to work, and a similar recurrence rate compared with the excision technique. Provided further clinical trials confirm these findings, stapled hemorrhoidectomy may become a future gold standard.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Day-case stapled (circular) vs. diathermy hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized, controlled trial evaluating surgical and functional outcome.

PURPOSE: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy may be associated with less pain and faster recovery than conventional hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsing hemorrhoids. Therefore, the outcome of stapled hemorrhoidectomy was compared with that of diathermy hemorrhoidectomy in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty patients with third-degree hemorrhoids were randomly assigned to stapled hemorrhoidectomy (n = 30) or to diathermy hemorrhoidectomy in a day-case setting. Visual analog scale was used for postoperative pain scoring. Surgical and functional outcome was assessed at six weeks and one year after surgery. RESULTS: Operation time was a median of 21 (range, 11-59) minutes in the stapled group. 22 (range, 14-40) minutes in the diathermy group. Day-case surgery was successful in 24 patients (80 percent) in the stapled group vs. 29 patients (97 percent) in the diathermy group. Average pain in the stapled group was significantly lower than in the diathermy group (median, 1.8 (0.1-4.8) vs. 4.3 (1.4-6.2), 95 percent confidence interval difference medians, 1.15-3.85, P = 0.0002, Mann-Whitney U test) as was the average pain expected by the patients (median -2.7 (-0.15-0.8) vs. 0.006 (-4.05-0.5) respectively, 95 percent confidence interval difference medians, 0.5-3.55, P = 0.0018, Mann-Whitney U test). Postoperative morbidity and time off work were not significantly different between the diathermy and stapled groups. Seven treatment failures in the stapled group and one in the diathermy group necessitated other treatments at a later date. Patient satisfaction scores in the stapled and diathermy group were similar. Symptoms attributed to difficult rectal evacuation decreased significantly after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is a significantly less painful operation than diathermy hemorrhoidectomy, but does not seem to offer significant advantages in terms of hospital stay or symptom control in the long term. Hemorrhoidectomy may improve symptoms of difficult rectal evacuation.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Randomized trial of rubber band ligation vs. stapled hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed piles.

PURPOSE: The introduction of stapled hemorrhoidectomy may replace local techniques such as rubber band ligation as a first-line treatment for Grade III and small Grade IV piles. We conducted a randomized trial to determine the role of rubber band ligation in the era of stapled hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with Grade III or small Grade IV hemorrhoids were randomly allocated to either rubber band ligation or stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Patient demographics and procedure-related details were recorded. Follow-up was at two weeks and two and six months to assess complications, symptom relief, incontinence scores, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were randomly assigned to rubber band ligation and 30 to stapled hemorrhoidectomy. The groups were equally matched for age, gender, grade of piles, continence scores, and quality of life. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy was associated with increased pain and analgesia usage at both 2-week and 2-month follow-up (P < 0.001). Rubber band ligation and stapled hemorrhoidectomy were equally effective in controlling symptomatic prolapse, but rubber band ligation was associated with an increased incidence of recurrent bleeding (P = 0.002). There were 6 procedure-related complications in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group compared with none in the rubber band ligation group (P = 0.027). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of continence scores, patient satisfaction, or quality of life. CONCLUSION: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy is associated with more pain and minor morbidity than rubber band ligation in the treatment of Grade III and small Grade IV piles. However, for those patients who do not want the risk of further intervention procedures, stapled hemorrhoidectomy offers the better chance of a symptomatic cure.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

A double-blind, randomized trial comparing Ligasure and Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy.

PURPOSE: The major problem after hemorrhoidectomy is postoperative pain. New techniques have been evolved to circumvent this problem. The present study was conducted to compare the outcomes of Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy and Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: This study was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients with Grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoids admitted for hemorrhoidectomy were selected and randomized into two groups: 1) Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy or 2) Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy. The primary outcomes measured were the analgesic requirement and the postoperative pain score (assessed by an independent assessor). Secondary outcome criteria included the operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, patient satisfaction score, and early and late complications. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were randomized into two groups (LigaSure 24, Harmonic Scalpel 25). Two patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 47 patients (LigaSure 24, Harmonic Scalpel 23) available for final analysis. The age and gender distribution were comparable. The postoperative pain score (median 2.6 vs. 4.8, P < 0.001) and postoperative oral analgesic (Dologesic) requirement (median 5 vs. 13, P = 0.001) were significantly less in the LigaSure group. The operating time (median 11 vs. 18 minutes, P < 0.001) was significantly less in the LigaSure group. The hospital stay, patient satisfaction score, percentage of patients requiring pethidine injection, percentage of patients with first bowel movement on or before the first postoperative day, and complication rates were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy reduces the postoperative pain and operating time compared to the Harmonic Scalpel hemorrhoidectomy. It is a safe, effective procedure for treating Grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoids.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Closed vs ligasure hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the operative time, postoperative complications, and analgesic requirement between closed hemorrhoidectomy and Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study was conducted in a prospectively randomized controlled fashion. Forty-seven patients with grade 3 or 4 hemorrhoids plus external component or skin tag were operated on by either hemorrhoidectomy with Ligasure (24 patients) or closed hemorrhoidectomy (23 patients). One patient in each group was lost to follow up. The operative time, postoperative verbal numeric pain score, analgesic requirement, bleeding, and wound dehiscence between the two groups were compared Unpaired t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, or Fisher's Exact tests were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical data between two groups were comparable. Operative time for the Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy was significantly shorter than the closed hemorrhoidectomy group (21.70 +/- 11.76 vs 35.68 +/- 14.25 min, p < 0. 001), while the number of resected hemorrhoids in the study group were 2.91 versus 2.18 in the control group. However, there were no differences in post-operative pain score, analgesic requirement, bleeding, or wound dehiscence between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy is superior to closed hemorrhoidectomy in terms of reducing the operative time without affecting postoperative complications.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

[Prospective study of the function of the anal sphincter before and after hemorrhoidectomy].

A prospective study was carried out on the anorectal function in patients with hemorrhoids (group H, n = 25) versus normal controls (group T, n = 22) and on the effect at three months of hemorrhoidectomy on sphincter function and anal continence. Hemorrhoidectomy was performed by the same surgeon using the standard Milligan Morgan procedure in all cases. All patients and controls underwent an anal manometry, a measure of the length of the anal sphincter and a saline continence test. Anal resting pressure was higher in group H as compared to group T before hemorrhoidectomy (136 +/- 32 cm H2O vs 98 +/- 19 p less than 0.001). After hemorrhoidectomy, and resting pressure was significantly lower (141 +/- 21 cm H2O vs 106 +/- 25 p less than 0.01). Anal length was similar in group H and in group T (50.2 +/- 6.6 mm vs 45 +/- 5.5 NS) but decreased significantly after hemorrhoidectomy (41.9 +/- 7.6 vs 50.3 +/- 7.3 p less than 0.01). Ultraslow waves were more often observed in patients with piles (60 p. 100 vs 9 p. 100 of normal controls). After hemorrhoidectomy ultraslow waves were less commonly encountered (25 p. 100 p less than 0.05). Anal leakage during the saline continence test was observed in 12 and 82 p. 100 of patients before and after hemorrhoidectomy, respectively (p less than 0.001). No anal leakage was observed in the control groups. After hemorrhoidectomy the mean volume of anal leakage was of 190 ml. In 35 p. 100 of the patients, anal leakage occurred before the anal infusion of 500 ml.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed2002

A systematic review of stapled hemorrhoidectomy.

HYPOTHESIS: Use of circular stapled hemorrhoidectomy will result in the same or improved safety and efficacy outcomes as those of the conventional methods for hemorrhoidectomy in patients with hemorrhoids. DATA SOURCES: Studies on stapled hemorrhoidectomy were identified using PREMEDLINE and MEDLINE (June 1966-June 2001), EMBASE (January 1980-June 2001), Current Contents (June 1993-June 2001), Ovid HEALTHSTAR (January 1975-June 2001), the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database (searched June 13, 2001), and The National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment database (searched June 14, 2001). The search terms were as follows: haemorrhoid* and (stapl* or convent*) or hemorrhoid* and (stapl* or convent*). The Cochrane Library (2001, issue 2) was searched using the search terms haemorrhoid* or hemorrhoid*. STUDY SELECTION: Articles detailing randomized controlled trials were included if they compared circular stapled with conventional hemorrhoidectomy and provided relevant safety and efficacy outcome information. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from all included studies were extracted using standardized data extraction tables that were developed a priori. In addition, the randomized controlled trials were examined with respect to the adequacy of allocation concealment, handling of those unavailable for follow-up, and any other aspect of the study design or execution that may have introduced bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted when the studies had comparable outcomes, inclusion criteria, and follow-up. There was reasonably clear evidence in favor of the stapled procedure for bleeding at 2 weeks (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.82) and length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.89 days; 95% confidence interval, -1.42 to -0.36). Other less robust results in favor of the stapled hemorrhoidectomy related to pain, bleeding, anal discharge, wound healing, tenderness to per rectal examination, incontinence scores, earlier return of bowel function, analgesic requirement, and resumption of normal activities. One trial showed that prolapse occurred at significantly higher rates in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group. However, the outcomes were poorly reported and generally showed statistically significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy may be at least as safe as conventional hemorrhoidal surgical techniques. However, the efficacy of the stapled procedure compared with the conventional techniques could not be determined. More rigorous studies with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes need to be conducted.

Hemorrhoids↗