We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids: prospective, randomized trial comparing closed excisional hemorrhoidectomy and the Harmonic Scalpel technique of excisional hemorrhoidectomy.
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2001 June
PURPOSE: The object of this study was to evaluate technique using the ultrasonically activated scalpel as an alternative to closed hemorrhoidectomy in an unbiased evaluation of this new technology.
METHODS: Thirty patients with Grade 2 or 3 symptomatic hemorrhoids were prospectively randomized to undergo closed hemorrhoidectomy assisted by electrocautery or hemorrhoidectomy with the ultrasonically activated scalpel, i.e., the Harmonic Scalpel. We evaluated the difference between techniques in operative time, postoperative pain, incontinence, and quality of life (using the Short Form-36 survey), as well as complications.
RESULTS: Mean operative time for closed hemorrhoidectomy with electrocautery was 35.7 +/- 3 minutes; for Harmonic Scalpel patients, it was 31.7 +/- 2 minutes (P < 0.37). There was no statistical difference in operative time for two- or three-column hemorrhoidectomy. There was no significant difference in pain measurements reported on Day 1 (5.8 +/- 0.4 for electrocautery and 5.6 +/- 0.6 for Harmonic Scalpel, P < 0.82). On postoperative Day 7, the difference in pain between groups approached significance, with pain reported as 3.7 +/- 0.3 for electrocautery and 5.1 +/- 0.7 for Harmonic Scalpel(R) (P < 0.06). At six weeks, both groups were pain free. There was a significant decrease in pain between postoperative Days 1 and 7 in the electrocautery patients that was not seen in the Harmonic Scalpel patients. Incontinence measured preoperatively, at postoperative Day 7, and at postoperative Week 6 was similar for both groups and reflected occasional incontinence of gas. When the various items of the Short Form-36 survey were compared, there was no significant difference between posttreatment and preoperative values. There was no difference in the number of complications between patient groups.
CONCLUSION: Although the Harmonic Scalpel is an effective tool in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease, we found no specific advantage in postoperative pain, fecal incontinence, operative time, quality of life, or complications compared with traditional closed hemorrhoidectomy.
METHODS: Thirty patients with Grade 2 or 3 symptomatic hemorrhoids were prospectively randomized to undergo closed hemorrhoidectomy assisted by electrocautery or hemorrhoidectomy with the ultrasonically activated scalpel, i.e., the Harmonic Scalpel. We evaluated the difference between techniques in operative time, postoperative pain, incontinence, and quality of life (using the Short Form-36 survey), as well as complications.
RESULTS: Mean operative time for closed hemorrhoidectomy with electrocautery was 35.7 +/- 3 minutes; for Harmonic Scalpel patients, it was 31.7 +/- 2 minutes (P < 0.37). There was no statistical difference in operative time for two- or three-column hemorrhoidectomy. There was no significant difference in pain measurements reported on Day 1 (5.8 +/- 0.4 for electrocautery and 5.6 +/- 0.6 for Harmonic Scalpel, P < 0.82). On postoperative Day 7, the difference in pain between groups approached significance, with pain reported as 3.7 +/- 0.3 for electrocautery and 5.1 +/- 0.7 for Harmonic Scalpel(R) (P < 0.06). At six weeks, both groups were pain free. There was a significant decrease in pain between postoperative Days 1 and 7 in the electrocautery patients that was not seen in the Harmonic Scalpel patients. Incontinence measured preoperatively, at postoperative Day 7, and at postoperative Week 6 was similar for both groups and reflected occasional incontinence of gas. When the various items of the Short Form-36 survey were compared, there was no significant difference between posttreatment and preoperative values. There was no difference in the number of complications between patient groups.
CONCLUSION: Although the Harmonic Scalpel is an effective tool in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease, we found no specific advantage in postoperative pain, fecal incontinence, operative time, quality of life, or complications compared with traditional closed hemorrhoidectomy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app