Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Randomised trial comparing LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation.
Tech Coloproctol. 2002 Dec; 6(3):171-5.TC

Abstract

The study was designed to compare LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with open haemorrhoidectomy performed by means of diathermy excision. Fifty-sixty consecutive patients with third- and fourth-degree haemorrhoids were randomly allocated to undergo either LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy (29 patients) or diathermy haemorrhoidectomy (27 patients). All patients were evaluated for operative time, pain, post-operative analgesic requirements, time to first bowel movement, length of hospital stay, wound healing period, time to return to work, and occurrence of early postoperative complications (such as urinary dysfunction, bleeding, soiling, seepage, continence disorders) and late complications (such as stenosis). A statistically significant advantage was observed in the patients who received the LigaSure technique as far as concerns length of operative time (9.2 vs. 12.2 min, p<0.001), post-operative analgesic requirements (14.1 vs. 16.8 administrations, p<0.001), wound healing period (16.3 vs. 37.5 days, p< 0.0001), and time to return to work (8.3 vs. 18.3 days, p<0.01). No significant difference was seen in the postoperative pain score, complications rate, first bowel motion or hospital stay. No recurrence was observed at the 6-month follow-up. In conclusion, our experience shows that the LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy offers definite advantages over the classic diathermy technique. This procedure is easier, safer, and more rapid to perform and is followed by a faster wound healing time, a significantly shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and faster wound healing.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of General Surgery, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Italy.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

12525911

Citation

Milito, G, et al. "Randomised Trial Comparing LigaSure Haemorrhoidectomy With the Diathermy Dissection Operation." Techniques in Coloproctology, vol. 6, no. 3, 2002, pp. 171-5.
Milito G, Gargiani M, Cortese F. Randomised trial comparing LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation. Tech Coloproctol. 2002;6(3):171-5.
Milito, G., Gargiani, M., & Cortese, F. (2002). Randomised trial comparing LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation. Techniques in Coloproctology, 6(3), 171-5.
Milito G, Gargiani M, Cortese F. Randomised Trial Comparing LigaSure Haemorrhoidectomy With the Diathermy Dissection Operation. Tech Coloproctol. 2002;6(3):171-5. PubMed PMID: 12525911.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Randomised trial comparing LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation. AU - Milito,G, AU - Gargiani,M, AU - Cortese,F, PY - 2003/1/15/pubmed PY - 2003/5/6/medline PY - 2003/1/15/entrez SP - 171 EP - 5 JF - Techniques in coloproctology JO - Tech Coloproctol VL - 6 IS - 3 N2 - The study was designed to compare LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with open haemorrhoidectomy performed by means of diathermy excision. Fifty-sixty consecutive patients with third- and fourth-degree haemorrhoids were randomly allocated to undergo either LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy (29 patients) or diathermy haemorrhoidectomy (27 patients). All patients were evaluated for operative time, pain, post-operative analgesic requirements, time to first bowel movement, length of hospital stay, wound healing period, time to return to work, and occurrence of early postoperative complications (such as urinary dysfunction, bleeding, soiling, seepage, continence disorders) and late complications (such as stenosis). A statistically significant advantage was observed in the patients who received the LigaSure technique as far as concerns length of operative time (9.2 vs. 12.2 min, p<0.001), post-operative analgesic requirements (14.1 vs. 16.8 administrations, p<0.001), wound healing period (16.3 vs. 37.5 days, p< 0.0001), and time to return to work (8.3 vs. 18.3 days, p<0.01). No significant difference was seen in the postoperative pain score, complications rate, first bowel motion or hospital stay. No recurrence was observed at the 6-month follow-up. In conclusion, our experience shows that the LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy offers definite advantages over the classic diathermy technique. This procedure is easier, safer, and more rapid to perform and is followed by a faster wound healing time, a significantly shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and faster wound healing. SN - 1123-6337 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/12525911/Randomised_trial_comparing_LigaSure_haemorrhoidectomy_with_the_diathermy_dissection_operation_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s101510200038 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -