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