Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1345–1350 | Cite as

Radiofrequency versus conventional diathermy Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized study

  • Luana Franceschilli
  • Vito M. Stolfi
  • Stefano D’ Ugo
  • Giulio P. Angelucci
  • Sara Lazzaro
  • Emanuele Picone
  • Achille Gaspari
  • Pierpaolo Sileri
Original Article

Abstract

Background

In the past decade, several new surgical tools have revived the hope for an improved technique to treat radically hemorrhoids with less postoperative pain. Among these radiofrequency (RF), excisional surgery seems to be safe, fast, and accompanied by less postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare RF (ligasure TM) to conventional diathermy Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (MMH).

Patients and methods

Between January 2003 and July 2009, 210 symptomatic patients were randomized to undergo RF (118 patients) or diathermy MMH (92 patients). Mean follow-up was 39 ± 16 months. Clinical outcome was assessed by validated questionnaire on postoperative symptoms and satisfaction. Primary endpoints were pain and wound healing. Secondary endpoints were operative time, early and late complications (including recurrences), and patient satisfaction. Data was analyzed using chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test.

Results

Despite postoperative pain was less after RF, this difference was significant only for severe pain (expressed as VAS score >7). Significant differences were observed in terms of wound healing. The two techniques were similar in terms of early and late complications.

Conclusions

RF hemorrhoidectomy is followed by reduced severe pain and better wound healing. However, in our experience, this is not followed by earlier return to daily activities.

Keywords

Hemorrhoidectomy Outcome LigaSure Radiofrequency Milligan-Morgan 

References

  1. 1.
    Mastakov MY, Buettner PG, Ho YH (2008) Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing conventional excisional haemorrhoidectomy with Ligasure™ for haemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol 12:229–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altomare DF, Milito G, Andreoli R, Arcanà F, Tricomi N, Salafia C, Segre D, Pecorella G, Pulvirenti d’Urso A, Cracco N, Giovanardi G, Romano G (2008) Ligasure™ Precise vs. conventional diathermy for Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51:514–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franklin EJ, Seetharam S, Lowney J, Horgan PG (2003) Randomized, clinical trial of Ligasure™ vs. conventional diathermy in hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1380–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pa C, Cresswell AB, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (2003) Real- time thermography during energized vessel sealing and dissection. Surg Endosc 17(10):1640–1645 [MEDLINE: 12874690]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta PJ (2004) A comparative study between radiofrequency ablation with placation and Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy for grade III hemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol 8:163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta PJ (2003) Randomized trial comparing in-situ radiofrequency ablation and Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy in prolapsing hemorrhoids. J Nippon Med Sch 70(5):393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jayne DG, Botterill I, Ambrose NS, Brennan TG, Guillou PJ, O’Riordain DS (2001) Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure™ versus conventional diathermy for day-case hemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 89:428–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palazzo FF, Francis DL, Cliffon MA (2002) Randomized clinical trial Ligasure™ versus open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 89:154–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muzi MG, Milito G, Nigro C, Cadeddu F, Andreoli F, Amabile D, Farinon AM (2007) Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure™ and conventional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 94:937–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milito G, Gargiani M, Cortese F (2002) Randomized trial comparing Ligasure™ haemorrhoidectomy with the diathermy dissection operation. Tech Coloproctol 6:171–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang JY, Lu CY, Tsay HL et al (2006) Randomized controlled trial of Ligasure™ with submucosal dissection vs. Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed haemorrhoids. World J Surg 30:462–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sayfan J, Becker A, Koltun L (2001) Sutureless closed hemorrhoidectomy: a new technique. Ann Surg 234:21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thorbeck CV, Montes MF (2002) Haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled clinical trial of Ligasure™ compared with Milligan-Morgan operation. Eur J Surg 168:482–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nienhuijs SW, de Hingh IHJT. Conventional versus LigaSure Hemorrhoidectomy for patients with symptomatic Hemorrhoids (Review) The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramcharan KS, Hunt TM (2005) Anal Stenosis after Ligasure™ hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1670–1671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luana Franceschilli
    • 1
  • Vito M. Stolfi
    • 1
  • Stefano D’ Ugo
    • 1
  • Giulio P. Angelucci
    • 1
  • Sara Lazzaro
    • 1
  • Emanuele Picone
    • 1
  • Achille Gaspari
    • 1
  • Pierpaolo Sileri
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly
  2. 2.Chirurgia Generale, Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV.6B)RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations