This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Surgical Interventions, Other  • Review  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Alert me on articles by topic

Susan Galandiuk, MD

Arch Surg. 2007;142(12):1218.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing short-term outcomes in LigaSure and conventional hemorrhoidectomy. They found that operative time, blood loss, and pain on postoperative day 1 were significantly less following LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy than conventional hemorrhoidectomy. For minor procedures, blood loss is realistically not a significant factor and the difference in operative times is also not clinically significant. Pain, however, remains an important issue.

Patients seek hemorrhoidectomy for a variety of complaints: troublesome bleeding, hemorrhoidal prolapse requiring manual reduction, and difficulties with hygiene due to large external hemorrhoidal tags, among other reasons. Each of these may require a slight modification or variation of surgical technique and therefore may be associated with differing degrees of postoperative pain. Treating the external hemorrhoidal component, by necessity, involves a cutaneous incision, which will clearly be associated with more pain than that associated with excision of the internal hemorrhoidal . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Meta-analysis of Short-term Outcomes of Randomized Controlled Trials of LigaSure vs Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy
Emile K. Tan, Julie Cornish, Ara W. Darzi, Savas Papagrigoriadis, and Paris P. Tekkis
Arch Surg. 2007;142(12):1209-1218.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT