Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 808–815

Circular vs. Three-Quadrant Hemorrhoidectomy for End-Stage Hemorrhoids: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of a Prospective Randomized Trial

  • Maia A. Qarabaki
  • Gela A. Mukhashavria
  • Gia G. Mukhashavria
  • Nodari G. Giorgadze
Original Article

DOI: 10.1007/s11605-013-2424-x

Cite this article as:
Qarabaki, M.A., Mukhashavria, G.A., Mukhashavria, G.G. et al. J Gastrointest Surg (2014) 18: 808. doi:10.1007/s11605-013-2424-x

Abstract

Purpose

Circumferential excisional hemorrhoidectomy (CEH) enables the surgeon to remove the encircling hemorrhoids completely. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of CEH with that of Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy (FH) for end-stage hemorrhoids.

Methods

Between February 1998 and December 2011, a prospective randomized trial was conducted with 688 patients who presented with end-stage hemorrhoids and underwent FH or CEH at our center.

Results

The patient demographics, mean operative times, lengths of hospital stay, and cumulative rates of postoperative complications were similar in the study groups. Significant differences were revealed in the incidence of postoperative hemorrhage (9 vs. 0 patients in the FH and CEH groups, respectively; p = 0.002) and in the tendency to form anal stricture (15 vs. 32 patients in the FH and CEH groups, respectively; p = 0.02). However, all cases of anal strictures were easily managed by digital dilatations. At a mean follow-up of 7.4 (range, 1–14) years, accessible patients from the CEH group remained symptom free, whereas 126 of 308 patients in the FH group indicated that they had recurrent hemorrhoidal symptoms.

Conclusion

Without increasing postoperative complications, CEH demonstrates an advantage compared with FH, with regard to reducing the rate of recurrence to 0 through complete hemorrhoid removal.

Keywords

Fourth-degree hemorrhoidsFerguson hemorrhoidectomyCircular hemorrhoidectomy

Supplementary material

11605_2013_2424_Fig8_ESM.jpg (32 kb)
ESM 1

(JPEG 32 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM1_ESM.tif (4.1 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 4210 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig9_ESM.jpg (134 kb)
ESM 2

(JPEG 133 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM2_ESM.tif (6 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 6154 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig10_ESM.jpg (95 kb)
ESM 3

(JPEG 95 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM3_ESM.tif (10.8 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 11013 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig11_ESM.jpg (38 kb)
ESM 4

(JPEG 38 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM4_ESM.tif (4.5 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 4605 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig12_ESM.jpg (16 kb)
ESM 5

(JPEG 16 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM5_ESM.tif (2 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 2023 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig13_ESM.jpg (3 kb)
ESM 6

(JPEG 2 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM6_ESM.tif (470 kb)
High resolution image (TIFF 470 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig14_ESM.jpg (3 kb)
ESM 7

(JPEG 3 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM7_ESM.tif (491 kb)
High resolution image (TIFF 490 kb)
11605_2013_2424_Fig15_ESM.jpg (30 kb)
ESM 8

(JPEG 29 kb)

11605_2013_2424_MOESM8_ESM.tif (4.1 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 4159 kb)

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maia A. Qarabaki
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gela A. Mukhashavria
    • 1
  • Gia G. Mukhashavria
    • 1
  • Nodari G. Giorgadze
    • 2
  1. 1.Coloproctological Center of GeorgiaTbilisiGeorgia
  2. 2.David Tatishvili Medical CenterTbilisiGeorgia
  3. 3.TbilisiGeorgia