Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy.
Br J Surg. 1997 Dec; 84(12):1729-30.BJ

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study was a prospective randomized comparison of healing following open and closed haemorrhoidectomy.

METHODS

Sixty-seven consecutive patients (mean(s.e.m.) age 45(1.7) years; 35 men, 32 women) with three prolapsed piles were randomized to open haemorrhoidectomy (n = 34) or closed haemorrhoidectomy (n = 33).

RESULTS

Mean(s.e.m.) follow-up was 8.7(0.2) months. There were no differences in the linear analogue pain scores, analgesic requirements and length of hospitalization after open haemorrhoidectomy and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Complete wound healing took significantly longer after closed haemorrhoidectomy (mean(s.e.m.) 6.9(0.7) weeks) compared with open haemorrhoidectomy (4.9(0.4)weeks) (P < 0.05). This was related to wound dehiscence in eight patients. Complication rates, however, were similar except for prolonged serous discharge from unhealed wounds. The anal manometry findings after both procedures were equivalent.

CONCLUSION

Open haemorrhoidectomy leads to faster and more reliable wound healing, although this did not result in less pain or fewer complications.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

9448627

Citation

Ho, Y H., et al. "Randomized Controlled Trial of Open and Closed Haemorrhoidectomy." The British Journal of Surgery, vol. 84, no. 12, 1997, pp. 1729-30.
Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M, et al. Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84(12):1729-30.
Ho, Y. H., Seow-Choen, F., Tan, M., & Leong, A. F. (1997). Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. The British Journal of Surgery, 84(12), 1729-30.
Ho YH, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Open and Closed Haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 1997;84(12):1729-30. PubMed PMID: 9448627.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. AU - Ho,Y H, AU - Seow-Choen,F, AU - Tan,M, AU - Leong,A F, PY - 1998/2/4/pubmed PY - 1998/2/4/medline PY - 1998/2/4/entrez SP - 1729 EP - 30 JF - The British journal of surgery JO - Br J Surg VL - 84 IS - 12 N2 - BACKGROUND: This study was a prospective randomized comparison of healing following open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: Sixty-seven consecutive patients (mean(s.e.m.) age 45(1.7) years; 35 men, 32 women) with three prolapsed piles were randomized to open haemorrhoidectomy (n = 34) or closed haemorrhoidectomy (n = 33). RESULTS: Mean(s.e.m.) follow-up was 8.7(0.2) months. There were no differences in the linear analogue pain scores, analgesic requirements and length of hospitalization after open haemorrhoidectomy and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Complete wound healing took significantly longer after closed haemorrhoidectomy (mean(s.e.m.) 6.9(0.7) weeks) compared with open haemorrhoidectomy (4.9(0.4)weeks) (P < 0.05). This was related to wound dehiscence in eight patients. Complication rates, however, were similar except for prolonged serous discharge from unhealed wounds. The anal manometry findings after both procedures were equivalent. CONCLUSION: Open haemorrhoidectomy leads to faster and more reliable wound healing, although this did not result in less pain or fewer complications. SN - 0007-1323 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/9448627/Randomized_controlled_trial_of_open_and_closed_haemorrhoidectomy_ L2 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/openurl?genre=article&amp;sid=nlm:pubmed&amp;issn=0007-1323&amp;date=1997&amp;volume=84&amp;issue=12&amp;spage=1729 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -