Background Postoperative pain has always been the main adverse effect of the surgical treatment for hemorrhoids. Surgical techniques evolved mainly to solve this problem as well as postoperative bleeding, stenosis and recurrence. This randomized study compared the results obtained using submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury with those of the conventional Parks' operation. Methods A total of 102 patients were randomized to undergo submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury (51 patients) or conventional Parks' haemorrhoidectomy (51 patients); loss of some patients at follow-up resulted in 49 and 45 patients available for analysis, respectively. The operating time, amount of pain (VAS scale, 1-10), postoperative analgesic requirement, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and patient satisfaction were documented. Results In comparison to Parks' technique, use of radiofrequency bistoury reduced mean operating time (61.2 min vs. 37.4 min; p<0.05), first postoperative day pain score (5.9 vs. 4.0; p<0.05), pain score at first evacuation (5.7 vs. 4.2; p>0.05), postoperative stay (2.2 days vs. 1.3 days; p<0.05), and pain score on postoperative day 7 (3.6 vs. 2.8; p>0.05). Fecal incontinence was never observed. Incontinence to flatus with spontaneous resolution within 2-3 weeks was reported by 4 subjects in each surgical group. Urinary retention requiring catheterization occurred in 21 subjects in the radiofrequency bistoury group and in 18 patients in the control group. No complications nor recurrences were reported at the 6-month follow-up in either group. Conclusions Performing submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury improves the results obtained with Parks' technique, allowing us to simplify the surgical procedure, reduce operating time, postoperative pain and bleeding, and shorten the hospital stay.
Filingeri, V., Gravante, G., Baldessari, E., Grimaldi, M., Casciani, C. (2004). Prospective randomized trial of submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury vs. conventional Parks' operation. TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 8(1), 31-36 [10.1007/s10151-004-0048-6].
Prospective randomized trial of submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury vs. conventional Parks' operation
FILINGERI, VINCENZINO;
2004-01-01
Abstract
Background Postoperative pain has always been the main adverse effect of the surgical treatment for hemorrhoids. Surgical techniques evolved mainly to solve this problem as well as postoperative bleeding, stenosis and recurrence. This randomized study compared the results obtained using submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury with those of the conventional Parks' operation. Methods A total of 102 patients were randomized to undergo submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury (51 patients) or conventional Parks' haemorrhoidectomy (51 patients); loss of some patients at follow-up resulted in 49 and 45 patients available for analysis, respectively. The operating time, amount of pain (VAS scale, 1-10), postoperative analgesic requirement, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and patient satisfaction were documented. Results In comparison to Parks' technique, use of radiofrequency bistoury reduced mean operating time (61.2 min vs. 37.4 min; p<0.05), first postoperative day pain score (5.9 vs. 4.0; p<0.05), pain score at first evacuation (5.7 vs. 4.2; p>0.05), postoperative stay (2.2 days vs. 1.3 days; p<0.05), and pain score on postoperative day 7 (3.6 vs. 2.8; p>0.05). Fecal incontinence was never observed. Incontinence to flatus with spontaneous resolution within 2-3 weeks was reported by 4 subjects in each surgical group. Urinary retention requiring catheterization occurred in 21 subjects in the radiofrequency bistoury group and in 18 patients in the control group. No complications nor recurrences were reported at the 6-month follow-up in either group. Conclusions Performing submucosal hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury improves the results obtained with Parks' technique, allowing us to simplify the surgical procedure, reduce operating time, postoperative pain and bleeding, and shorten the hospital stay.Questo articolo è pubblicato sotto una Licenza Licenza Creative Commons