Abstract
PURPOSE: The present prospective, randomized clinical trial compares the outcome of surgical hemorrhoidectomy according to Parks and Milligan-Morgan in terms of hospital stay, duration of incapacity to work, symptom relief, length of morbidity, and patient convenience. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with third or fourth degree internal hemorrhoids were randomly allocated to the two groups. Before surgery, all patients were interviewed using a standard questionnaire, followed by rectal examination. All patients underwent a follow-up interview and examinations 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the operation. RESULTS: No serious postoperative complications were seen. Length of hospital stay (3.2 days for Parks hemorrhoidectomyvs. 4.6 days for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 and 2.6, respectively;P=0.02) and mean duration of incapacity to work (12.3 days for Parks hemorrhoidectomyvs. 20.2 days for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.7 and 10.2, respectively;P<0.001) differed significantly between the Milligan-Morgan and Parks patients. Until two weeks after the operation, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy patients experienced significantly more pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that both operations are safe, easy to perform, and lead to satisfactory results. However, the Parks procedure is the preferred option, because it minimizes patients' postoperative discomfort, is more economic, has a significantly reduced hospital stay, and has a shorter time for return to work.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ferguson EF. Alternatives in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. South Med J 1988;81:606–10.
El-Awady HM, El-Sefi TA, Shehata MI. Comparative study of three lines of surgical management of haemorrhoidal disease. Saudi Med J 1986;7:333–9.
Dennison AR, Paraskevopoulos JA, Kerrigan DD, Short-house AJ. New thoughts on the aetiology of haemorrhoids and the development of non-operative methods for their management. Int J Surg Sci 1995;2:31–5.
O'Callaghan JD, Matheson TS, Hall R. Inpatient treatment of prolapsing piles: cryosurgeryversus Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 1982;69:157–9.
Khubchandani IT. Operative hemorrhoidectomy. Surg Clin North Am 1988;68:1411–6.
Parks AG. The surgical treatment of haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 1956;43:337–51.
Milligan ET, Morgan CN, Lond LE. Surgical anatomy of the anal canal, and the operative treatment of haemorrhoids. Lancet 1937;II:1119–24.
Seow-Choen F, Low HC. Prospective randomized study of radicalversus four piles haemorrhoidectomy for symptomatic large circumferential prolapsed piles. Br J Surg 1995;82:188–9.
Ferguson JA, Mazier WP, Ganchrow MI, Friend WG. The closed technique of hemorrhoidectomy. Surgery 1971;70:480–4.
Kouba R. Die Hämorrhoidektomie. Chirurg 1980;51:784–8.
Bonello JC. Who's afraid of the dentate line? The White-head hemorrhoidectomy. Am J Surg 1988;156:182–6.
Girona J. Submuköse Hämorrhoidektomie nach Parks. Coloproctology 1981;2:125–7.
Stelzner F. Die Hämorrhoidektomie—eine einfache Operation? Chirurg 1992;63:316–26.
Duhamel J, Romand-Heuer Y. Technische Besonder-heiten bei der Hämorrhoidektomie nach Milligan und Morgan. Coloproctology 1980;4:265–6.
Rötzscher VM, Moschinski D, Fuchs N, Zammit A. Behandlungsergebnisse des Hämorrhoidalleidens mit dem Operationsverfahren nach Milligan und Morgan. Coloproctology 1980;2:114–8.
Reinhard F, Kirsch JJ. Hämorrhoiden-Operationen: Komplikationen und Risiken. Akt Chir 1995;30:140–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Hosch, S.B., Knoefel, W.T., Pichlmeier, U. et al. Surgical treatment of piles. Dis Colon Rectum 41, 159–164 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02238242
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02238242