Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids - Prospective, randomized trial comparing closed excisional hemorrhoidectomy and the Harmonic Scalpel((R)) technique of excisional hemorrhoidectomy

Khan, S., Pawlak, S. E., Eggenberger, J. C., Lee, C. S., Szilagy, E. J., Wu, J. S. and Margolin, D. A. (2001) Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids - Prospective, randomized trial comparing closed excisional hemorrhoidectomy and the Harmonic Scalpel((R)) technique of excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 44 6: 845-849. doi:10.1007/BF02234706


Author Khan, S.
Pawlak, S. E.
Eggenberger, J. C.
Lee, C. S.
Szilagy, E. J.
Wu, J. S.
Margolin, D. A.
Title Surgical treatment of hemorrhoids - Prospective, randomized trial comparing closed excisional hemorrhoidectomy and the Harmonic Scalpel((R)) technique of excisional hemorrhoidectomy
Journal name Diseases of the Colon & Rectum   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0012-3706
1530-0358
Publication date 2001-06-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1007/BF02234706
Volume 44
Issue 6
Start page 845
End page 849
Total pages 5
Place of publication New York, NY, United States
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Language eng
Formatted 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.
Keyword hemorrhoidectomy
Harmonic Scalpel((R))
outcome
Ultrasonically Activated Scalpel
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 39 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 11 Sep 2011, 22:47:50 EST by System User on behalf of School of Medicine