Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 845–849 | Cite as

Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids

Prospective, randomized trial comparing closed excisional hemorrhoidectomy and the harmonic scalpel® technique of excisional hemorrhoidectomy
  • S. Khan
  • S. E. Pawlak
  • J. C. Eggenberger
  • C. S. Lee
  • E. J. Szilagy
  • J. S. Wu
  • D. A. Margolin
Original Contributions
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

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 Dayaq 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® (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.

Key words

Hemorrhoidectomy Harmonic Scalpel® Outcome 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McCarus SD. Physiologic mechanism of the ultrasonically activated scalpel. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996;3:601–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pescatori M, Anastasio G, Bottini C, Mentasti A. New grading and scoring for anal incontinence: evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:482–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hosch SB, Knoefel WT, Pichlmeiier U,et al. Surgical treatment of piles: prospective, randomized study of Parksvs. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:159–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M, Leong AF. Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 1997;84:1729–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seow-Choen F, Ho Y-H, Ang H-G, Goh H-S. Prospective, randomized trial comparing pain and clinical function after conventional scissors excision/ligationvs. diathermy excision without ligation for symptomatic prolapsed hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1165–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Senagore A, Mazier WP, Luchetfeld MA, MacKeigan JM, Wengert T. Treatment of advanced hemorrhoidal disease: a prospective, randomized comparison of cold scalpelvs. contact Nd:YAG laser. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:1042–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maruta F, Sugiyama A, Matsushita K,et al. Use of the Harmonic Scalpel™ in open abdominoperineal surgery for rectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:540–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kusunoki M, Shoji Y, Yanagi H, Ikeuchi H, Noda M, Yamamura T. Current trends in restorative proctocolectomy: introduction of an ultrasonically activated scalpel. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:1349–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Velanovich V. Experience with a generic quality of life instrument in a general surgery practice. J Surg Invest 1999;1:447–52.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Temple PC, Travis B, Sachs L,et al. Functioning and well-being of patients before and after elective surgery procedures. J Am Coll Surg 1995;181:17–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Khan
    • 1
  • S. E. Pawlak
    • 1
  • J. C. Eggenberger
    • 1
  • C. S. Lee
    • 1
  • E. J. Szilagy
    • 1
  • J. S. Wu
    • 1
  • D. A. Margolin
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal SurgeryHenry Ford Hospital K-7Detroit

Personalised recommendations