Background: In this article we reported results obtained in our previous studies concerning application of Radiofrequency (RF) in proctology and in particular for hemorrhoids treatment. Methods: We compared Radiofrequency Submucosal Hemorrhoidectomy (RSH) and Conventional Parks' Hemorrhoidectomy (CPH) (group 1), Radiofrequency Open Hemorroidectomy (ROH) and Milligan-Morgan Hemorrhoidectomy (MMH) (group 2), Radiofrequency Closed Hemorrhoidectomy (RCH) and Ferguson Hemorrhoidectomy (FH) (group 3), Combined Hemorrhoidal Radiocoagulation (CHR) and Rubber Band Ligation (RBL) (group 4). In this work primary endpoints were determined as evaluation of the grade of pain felt immediately after the procedure and at the first evacuation, bleeding, operation time, readmission to work, incidence of failures and patient's satisfaction. Results: Group 1 - In comparison to Parks' technique, use of radiofrequency scalpel reduced mean operation time (61.2 min, range 50-75, vs. 37.4 min, range 30-51; p < 0.05), first postoperative day pain score (5.9, range 3-10, vs. 4.0, range 1-10; p < 0.05), pain score at first evacuation (5.7, range 2-10, vs 4.2, range 1-8; p < 0.05) and pain score on postoperative days (3.6, range 1-9, vs. 2.8, range 1-8; p < 0.05). Group 2 - Results show a substantial similarity between these techniques, however the procedure lasted 7 minutes less with RF scalpel (18.6 min, range 16-21, vs. 25.55 min, range 20-30; p < 0.05). Group 3 - Patients treated with RF showed significant reduction in surgical time (23 min, range 21-31, vs. 33 min, range 24-35; p < 0.01), in pain at 1st post-operative day (VAS score 3.4 +/- 1.3 vs. 4.8 +/- 1.0; p < 0.05) and at the first evacuation (3.4 +/- 1.0 vs. 5.0 +/- 0.8; p < 0.05). Group 4 - The study confirmed validity of both the used techniques, however CHR seems to allow a reduction in incidence of failures. Conclusions: Results obtained from radiofrequency surgery compared with those achieved with classic surgery for hemorrhoidal disease show in the majority of cases that radiosurgery facilitates, accelerates and improves surgical procedures.
Filingeri, V., Bellini, M.i., Gravante, G. (2012). The role of radiofrequency surgery in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 16(4), 548-553.
The role of radiofrequency surgery in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease
FILINGERI, VINCENZINO;BELLINI, MARIA IRENE;
2012-01-01
Abstract
Background: In this article we reported results obtained in our previous studies concerning application of Radiofrequency (RF) in proctology and in particular for hemorrhoids treatment. Methods: We compared Radiofrequency Submucosal Hemorrhoidectomy (RSH) and Conventional Parks' Hemorrhoidectomy (CPH) (group 1), Radiofrequency Open Hemorroidectomy (ROH) and Milligan-Morgan Hemorrhoidectomy (MMH) (group 2), Radiofrequency Closed Hemorrhoidectomy (RCH) and Ferguson Hemorrhoidectomy (FH) (group 3), Combined Hemorrhoidal Radiocoagulation (CHR) and Rubber Band Ligation (RBL) (group 4). In this work primary endpoints were determined as evaluation of the grade of pain felt immediately after the procedure and at the first evacuation, bleeding, operation time, readmission to work, incidence of failures and patient's satisfaction. Results: Group 1 - In comparison to Parks' technique, use of radiofrequency scalpel reduced mean operation time (61.2 min, range 50-75, vs. 37.4 min, range 30-51; p < 0.05), first postoperative day pain score (5.9, range 3-10, vs. 4.0, range 1-10; p < 0.05), pain score at first evacuation (5.7, range 2-10, vs 4.2, range 1-8; p < 0.05) and pain score on postoperative days (3.6, range 1-9, vs. 2.8, range 1-8; p < 0.05). Group 2 - Results show a substantial similarity between these techniques, however the procedure lasted 7 minutes less with RF scalpel (18.6 min, range 16-21, vs. 25.55 min, range 20-30; p < 0.05). Group 3 - Patients treated with RF showed significant reduction in surgical time (23 min, range 21-31, vs. 33 min, range 24-35; p < 0.01), in pain at 1st post-operative day (VAS score 3.4 +/- 1.3 vs. 4.8 +/- 1.0; p < 0.05) and at the first evacuation (3.4 +/- 1.0 vs. 5.0 +/- 0.8; p < 0.05). Group 4 - The study confirmed validity of both the used techniques, however CHR seems to allow a reduction in incidence of failures. Conclusions: Results obtained from radiofrequency surgery compared with those achieved with classic surgery for hemorrhoidal disease show in the majority of cases that radiosurgery facilitates, accelerates and improves surgical procedures.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
