Skip to main content
Log in

Hemorrhoidectomy: Open or Closed Technique?

A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Hemorrhoidectomy is the treatment of choice for patients with third-degree or fourth-degree hemorrhoids. However, whether the closed or open technique yields better results is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare these techniques with respect to operating time, analgesic requirement, hospital stay, morbidity rate, duration of inability to work, healing time, and follow-up results. METHODS: In this prospective and randomized study, 80 patients with third- degree or fourth-degree hemorrhoidal disease were allocated to either the open- hemorrhoidectomy (Group A, n = 40) or the closed-procedure group (Group B, n = 40). Open hemorrhoidectomy was performed according to the St. Mark’s Hospital technique, whereas the Ferguson technique was used for the closed procedure under general anesthesia with the patient in the jackknife position. RESULTS: Mean operating time was significantly shorter in Group A (35 ± 7 vs. 45 ± 8 minutes, P < 0.001). Analgesic requirement on the day of surgery and the first postoperative day was also significantly lower (P < 0.05). The morbidity rate was higher in Group B (P < 0.05). Length of hospital stay and duration of inability to work were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Healing time was significantly shorter in Group B (2.8 ± 0.6 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 weeks, P < 0.001). Median follow-up time was 19.5 (range, 4–40) months. The only late complication (anal stenosis) was observed in one patient in Group B. CONCLUSIONS: Although the healing time is longer, the open technique is more advantageous with respect to shorter operating time, less discomfort in the early postoperative period, and lower morbidity rate. Gençosmanoğlu R, Ŝad O, Koç D, İnceoğlu R. Hemorrhoidectomy: open or closed technique? A prospective, randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:70–75.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. EF Ferguson SuffixJr (88) ArticleTitleAlternatives in the treatment of hemorrhoidal disease. South Med J 81 606–610

    Google Scholar 

  2. J Konsten CG Baeten (2000) ArticleTitleHemorrhoidectomy vs. Lord’s method: Dis Colon Rectum 43 503–506

    Google Scholar 

  3. IT Khubchandani (1988) ArticleTitleOperative hemorrhoidectomy. Surg Clin North Am 68 1411–1416

    Google Scholar 

  4. PM Nieves J Perez JA Suarez (1977) ArticleTitleHemorrhoidectomy—how I do it: Dis Colon Rectum 20 197–201

    Google Scholar 

  5. IT Khubchandani HD Trimpi JA Sheets (1972) ArticleTitleClosed hemorrhoidectomy with local anesthesia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 135 955–957

    Google Scholar 

  6. EA Carapeti MA Kamm PJ McDonald SJ Chadwick RK Phillips (1999) ArticleTitleRandomized trial of open versus closed day-case haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 86 612–613

    Google Scholar 

  7. G Arbman H Krook S Haapaniemi (2000) ArticleTitleClosed vs. open hemorrhoidectomy—is there any difference? Dis Colon Rectum 43 31–34

    Google Scholar 

  8. GL Kratzer (1974) ArticleTitleImproved local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Am Surg 40 609–612

    Google Scholar 

  9. JS Wolfe JJ Munoz JD Rosin (1979) ArticleTitleSurvey of hemorrhoidectomy practices: Dis Colon Rectum 22 536–538

    Google Scholar 

  10. JA Reis Neto FA Quilici F Corderio JA Reis Junior (1992) ArticleTitleOpen versus semi-open hemorrhoidectomy: Int Surg 77 84–90

    Google Scholar 

  11. CD Johnson J Budd AJ Ward (87) ArticleTitleLaxatives after hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 30 780–781

    Google Scholar 

  12. S Zaheer WT Reilly JH Pemberton D Ilstrup (1998) ArticleTitleUrinary retention after operations for benign anorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 41 696–704

    Google Scholar 

  13. HR Bailey JA Ferguson (1976) ArticleTitlePrevention of urinary retention by fluid restriction following anorectal operations. Dis Colon Rectum 19 250–252

    Google Scholar 

  14. SD Hoff HR Bailey DR Butts et al. (1994) ArticleTitleAmbulatory surgical hemorrhoidectomy—a solution to postoperative urinary retention? Dis Colon Rectum 37 1242–1244

    Google Scholar 

  15. SB Hosch WT Knoefel U Pichlmeier et al. (1998) ArticleTitleSurgical treatment of piles: Dis Colon Rectum 41 159–164

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Gençosmanoğlu,, R., Şad,, O., Koç,, D. et al. Hemorrhoidectomy: Open or Closed Technique?. Dis Colon Rectum 45, 70–75 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6116-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6116-1

Keywords

Navigation