Results of the double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing laser hemorrhoidoplasty with sutured mucopexy and excisional hemorrhoidectomy.
Hemorrhoidectomy
Hemorrhoids
Intrahemorrhoidal laser
Laser hemorrhoidoplasty
Sutured mucopexy
THD
Journal
International journal of colorectal disease
ISSN: 1432-1262
Titre abrégé: Int J Colorectal Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8607899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
accepted:
12
11
2019
pubmed:
9
1
2020
medline:
20
11
2020
entrez:
9
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the results of laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP), excisional hemorrhoidectomy (EH), and sutured mucopexy (MP). A randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded, single-center prospective study. Symptomatic 2nd- or 3rd-degree hemorrhoids patients. Computer randomization sequence, patient blinding, operating surgeon blinding, and surgeon-evaluator blinding. LHP was performed using a 1470 nm diode laser. Up to 250 J of energy delivered per 1 hemorrhoid. The procedure was performed circumferentially. MP ligations were placed in the area of visible hemorrhoidal tissue. Standard EH was performed up to the level of the hemorrhoidal pedicle. Follow-up at 1 and 6 weeks and 1 year. Recurrence of symptoms requiring treatment, intensity, and duration of pain after the operation, patients' quality of life, fecal incontinence, and patients' evaluation of treatment. A total of 121 patients. Groups were even preoperatively. LHP took 15 min (SD 5.6), MP took 16 min (SD 5.58), and EH took 29 min (SD 10.3). Recurrence requiring treatment rate was 0% after EH, 10% after LHP, and 22% after MP, p = 0.004. LHP and MP were less painful than EH, p < 0.001. Patients after LHP returned to regular activity after 15 days, after MP after 22 days, and after EH after 30 days, p < 0.001. SF-36 scores were better after EH. Symptoms of fecal incontinence improved in all the groups. Patients evaluate LHP better than EH and MP. Single-center study. Laser hemorrhoidoplasty is a safe, minimally invasive option for hemorrhoids, more effective than MP and less effective than EH. Patients evaluate this technique better than the other two.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31912268
doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03460-6
pii: 10.1007/s00384-019-03460-6
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
481-490Références
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Nov;20(88):1-150
pubmed: 27921992
Br J Surg. 2015 Dec;102(13):1603-18
pubmed: 26420725
Ann Surg. 2012 May;255(5):840-5
pubmed: 22504188
Dis Colon Rectum. 2019 Mar;62(3):333-342
pubmed: 30451751
Colorectal Dis. 2015 Jul;17(7):612-8
pubmed: 25603811
Photomed Laser Surg. 2009 Oct;27(5):819-23
pubmed: 19715465
Dis Colon Rectum. 2000 Jan;43(1):9-16; discussion 16-7
pubmed: 10813117
Tech Coloproctol. 2011 Dec;15(4):439-44
pubmed: 22033542
Zentralbl Chir. 2019 Aug;144(4):355-363
pubmed: 29186745
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Nov;21(70):1-224
pubmed: 29205150
Dis Colon Rectum. 1993 Jan;36(1):77-97
pubmed: 8416784
Colorectal Dis. 2016 Jul;18(7):710-6
pubmed: 26787597