Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of Ligasure Hemorrhoidectomy with Conventional Ferguson’s Hemorrhoidectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade III and IV hemorrhoids is a tedious procedure associated with significant morbidity and a prolonged convalescence. We compared Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy with conventional ‘closed’ Ferguson’s hemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of grade III and IV hemorrhoids. Forty-eight consecutive patients of grade III and IV hemorrhoids were randomized to either the Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy (28 patients) or Ferguson’s hemorrhoidectomy (20 patients). The hemorrhoidal predicle was coagulated with Ligasure™ in the Ligasure™ group and transfied with 2/0 chromic catgut in Ferguson’s method. In comparison with Ferguson’s method, Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy had a shorter operating time (29 vs 12.5 min), less blood loss (22 vs 11.5 ml), less post operative pain as measured on VAS scale and less postoperative complications including hemorrhage (10% vs 3.5%), urinary retention (10% vs 3.5%) and wound breakdown (20% vs 14%). The submucosal dissection technique with Ligasure™ coagulation of the hemorrhoidal pedicle is safe and effective. The blood vessels and tissue are reduced to a wafer thin seal with good hemostasis. Suturing is not required as the mucosal tissue over the pedicle is sealed off with the current. There is minimal lateral spread of either thermal or electrical energy. The external components of the hemorrhoids can also be treated at the same time. Because of its ease of use and less postoperative pain and complication Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy can be preformed as a day-care procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milligan ETC, Morgan CN, Jones LE, Officer R (1937) Surgical anatomy of the anal canal and the operative treatment of hemorrhoids. Lancet 2:1119–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferguson JA, Heaton JR (1959) Closed hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2:176–179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Engel AF, Eijsbouts QA (2000) Hemorrhoidectomy: painful choice. Lancet 355:2253–2254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang JY, Lu CY, Tsai HL, Chen FM, Huang CJ, Huang YS, Huang TJ, Hsieh JS (2006) Randomized controlled trial of Ligasure with submucosal dissection versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed hemorrhoids. World J Surg 30:462–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang JY, Tsai HL, Chen FM, Chu KS, Chan HM, Huang CJ, Hsieh JS (2007) Prospective randomized controlled trial of Starion™ vs Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1146–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sayfan J, Becker A, Koltan L (2001) Sutureless closed hemorrhoidectomy: a new technique. Ann Surg 234(1):21–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kwok SY, Chung CC, Tsui KK, Li MKW (2005) A double—blind randomized trial comparing Ligasure™ and Harmonic Scalpel™ hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 48(2):344–348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rahul Khanna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khanna, R., Khanna, S., Bhadani, S. et al. Comparison of Ligasure Hemorrhoidectomy with Conventional Ferguson’s Hemorrhoidectomy. Indian J Surg 72, 294–297 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-010-0192-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-010-0192-3

Keywords

Navigation