BACKGROUND: This randomized study compared results obtained with the Ferguson's technique for the treatment of hemorrhoids performed with a radiofrequency (RF) scalpel and traditional diathermy. METHODS: 28 patients affected by grade IV hemorrhoids were randomized to receive either the Ferguson operation with the RF scalpel (group A) or traditional diathermy (group B). The operating time, intra- and postoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, and overall patient satisfaction were all recorded. RESULTS: Six patients (three for each group) did not attend follow-up controls. Group A showed a significant reduction of the surgical time (23 vs. 33 min; p < .01), pain at first postoperative day (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] score 3.4 vs. 4.8; p < .05), and at the first evacuation (3.4 vs. 5.0; p < .05). No significant differences were observed for the pain score at the seventh postoperative day, or overall satisfaction scores at the 7th postoperative day, and six months postoperatively (p = NS). No severe complications were recorded. Two patients in group A (18.2%) and four patients in group B (36.4%) reported transitory gas incontinence that spontaneously resolved within one month (p = NS). Three patients in group A (27.3%) and four patients in group B (36.4%) required postoperative catheterization due to urinary retention (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: RF scalpel shortens the operating time of the Ferguson operation and is less painful in the early postoperative period.

Filingeri, V., Gravante, G., Overton, J., Iqbal, A., Toti, L. (2010). Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency versus classic diathermy. JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 170-174 [10.3109/08941930903564126)].

Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency versus classic diathermy

FILINGERI, VINCENZINO;TOTI, LUCA
2010-06-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This randomized study compared results obtained with the Ferguson's technique for the treatment of hemorrhoids performed with a radiofrequency (RF) scalpel and traditional diathermy. METHODS: 28 patients affected by grade IV hemorrhoids were randomized to receive either the Ferguson operation with the RF scalpel (group A) or traditional diathermy (group B). The operating time, intra- and postoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, and overall patient satisfaction were all recorded. RESULTS: Six patients (three for each group) did not attend follow-up controls. Group A showed a significant reduction of the surgical time (23 vs. 33 min; p < .01), pain at first postoperative day (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] score 3.4 vs. 4.8; p < .05), and at the first evacuation (3.4 vs. 5.0; p < .05). No significant differences were observed for the pain score at the seventh postoperative day, or overall satisfaction scores at the 7th postoperative day, and six months postoperatively (p = NS). No severe complications were recorded. Two patients in group A (18.2%) and four patients in group B (36.4%) reported transitory gas incontinence that spontaneously resolved within one month (p = NS). Three patients in group A (27.3%) and four patients in group B (36.4%) required postoperative catheterization due to urinary retention (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: RF scalpel shortens the operating time of the Ferguson operation and is less painful in the early postoperative period.
giu-2010
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Sì, ma tipo non specificato
Settore MED/18 - CHIRURGIA GENERALE
English
Con Impact Factor ISI
Filingeri, V., Gravante, G., Overton, J., Iqbal, A., Toti, L. (2010). Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency versus classic diathermy. JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 170-174 [10.3109/08941930903564126)].
Filingeri, V; Gravante, G; Overton, J; Iqbal, A; Toti, L
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

Questo articolo è pubblicato sotto una Licenza Licenza Creative Commons Creative Commons

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/39949
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact