LigaSure or Diathermy Excision of III-IV Degree Pile? A Single-institution Experience: A Randomized Control Trial

Ali Abood Alnajim; Samer Al-Hakkak; Ashraf Sami Ashraf Sami Muhammad; Alaa Abood Al-Wadess; Mahmood Albo Ahmed

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.8878

Authors

Ali Abood Alnajim Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jabir Ibn Hayyan Medical University, Najaf, Iraq
Samer Al-Hakkak Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jabir Ibn Hayyan Medical University, Najaf, Iraq https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7001-7188
Ashraf Sami Ashraf Sami Muhammad Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jabir Ibn Hayyan Medical University, Najaf, Iraq
Alaa Abood Al-Wadess Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jabir Ibn Hayyan Medical University, Najaf, Iraq
Mahmood Albo Ahmed Department of Surgery, West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St Edmunds, England

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.8878

Keywords:

LigaSure, Hemorrhoidectomy, Pile, Diathermy, Third-fourth degree hemorrhoid

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Pile excision is frequently associated with post-operative pain and prolonged hospital stay. A modern technique performed with LigaSure (LS) seems to be especially efficient when large pile tissue removal is needed.

AIM: The research compares LS pile excision with diathermy for the treatment of III-IV degree pile.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred and eight patients with pile III or IV degrees randomized into two groups: Group one LS and group two diathermy. The study evaluates the mean post-operative time, post-operative pain, discharge date, and time return to usual works early and late complication. All patients followed up for a range (12–24) months.

RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients managed by diathermy, 100 managed by LS. The operating time is considerably shortened in LS; post-operative pain disappears earlier in LS than diathermy. In addition, the timely return to work reduces in LS, while no distinction between hospitalization and post-operative complications.

CONCLUSIONS: LS is an efficient procedure in degree III or VI pile excision. Therefore, the procedure enhances to use LS as the treatment of choice for Classes III–IV pile, even it is more expensive than diathermy operation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

MacRae HM, McLeod RS. Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatment modalities. A meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38(7):687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02048023 PMid:7607026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02048023

Milligan ET, Naunton Morgan C, Jones L, Officer R. Surgical anatomy of the anal canal, and the operative treatment of haemorrhoids. Lancet. 1937;230(5959):1119-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)88465-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)88465-2

Ferguson JA, Heaton JR. Closed hemorrhoidectomy. Diseases Colon Rectum. 1959;2(2):176-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02616713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02616713

Ho YH, Cheong WK, Tsang C, Ho J, Eu KW, Tang, CL, et al. Stapled hemorrhoidectomy-cost and effectiveness. Randomized, controlled trial including incontinence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments at up to three months. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(12):1666-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02236847 PMid:11156449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236847

Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PH, Malthaner RA. Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD005393. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005393.pub2 PMid:17054255 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005393.pub2

Sayfan J, Becker A, Koltun L. Sutureless closed hemorrhoidectomy: A new technique. Ann Surg. 2001;234(1):21-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200107000-00004 PMid:11420479 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200107000-00004

Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, Chandler JG. High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:876-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900733 PMid:9602010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900733

Palazzo FF, Francis DL, Clifton MA. Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 2002;89(2):154-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.01993.x PMid:11856126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.01993.x

Thorbeck CV, Montes MF. Haemorrhoidectomy: Randomised controlled clinical trial of ligasure compared with Milligan- Morgan operation. Eur J Surg. 2002;168(8-9):482-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/110241502321116497 PMid:12549689 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/110241502321116497

Jayne DG, Botterill I, Ambrose NS, Brennan TG, Guillou PJ, O’Riordain DS. Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus conventional diathermy for day-case haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 2002;89(4):428-32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2002.02056.x PMid:11952582 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2002.02056.x

Milit G, Gargiani M, Cortese F. Randomised trial comparing LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation. Tech Coloproctol. 2002;6(3):171-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101510200038 PMid:12525911 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s101510200038

Franklin EJ, Seetharam S, Lowney J, Horgan PG. Randomized, clinical trial of Ligasure vs. conventional diathermy in hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(10):1380-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6754-3 PMid:14530679 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6754-3

Ortiz H, Marzo J, Armendariz P, DeMiguel M. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy vs. diathermy excision for fourth-degree hemorrhoids: A randomized, clinical trial and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(4):809-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0861-z PMid:15785901 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0861-z

Mastakov MY, Buettner PG, Ho YH. Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing conventional excisional haemorrhoidectomy with LigaSure for haemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol. 2008;12(3):229-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-008-0426-6 PMid:18679571 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-008-0426-6

Altomare DF, Milito G, Andreoli R, Arcanà F, Tricomi N, Salafia C, et al. Ligasure precise vs. conventional diathermy for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(5):514-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9171-6 PMid:18231834 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9171-6

Milito G, Cadeddu F, Muzi MG, Nigro C, Farinon AM. Haemorrhoidectomy with Ligasure vs conventional excisional techniques: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(2):85-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01807.x PMid:19220374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01807.x

Kraemer M, Parulava T, Roblick M, Duschka L, Muller-Lobeck H. Prospective, randomized study: Proximate PPH stapler vs. ligasure for hemorrhoidal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(8):1517-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0067-z PMid:15937619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0067-z

Nivatvongs S. Hemorrhoids. In: Gordon PH, Nivatvongs S, editors. Principles and Practice of Surgery of the Colon, Rectum, and Anus. St. Louis, Mo: QualityMedical; 1992. p. 179-198.

Filingeri V, Gravante G, Baldessari E, Grimaldi M, Casciani CU. Prospective randomized trial of submucosal haemorrhoidectomy with radiofrequency bistoury vs. conventional Parks’ operation. Tech Coloproctol. 2004;8(1):31-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-004-0048-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-004-0048-6

Wang JY, Lu CY, Tsai HL, Chen FM, Huang CJ, Huang YS, et al. Randomized controlled trial of LigaSure with submucosal dissection versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed hemorrhoids. World J Surg. 2006;30(3):462-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-297-1 PMid:16479346 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0297-1