Tomas Poskus1,2, Donatas Danys3,4, Gabija Makunaite3, Antanas Mainelis4,5, Saulius Mikalauskas3,4, Eligijus Poskus3,4, Valdemaras Jotautas3,4, Audrius Dulskas6, Eugenijus Jasiunas4, Kestutis Strupas3,4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. toshcus@yahoo.com. 2. Center of Abdominal Surgery, Vilnius University Hospital Santara Clinics, Santariskiu Street, LT-08661, Vilnius, Lithuania. toshcus@yahoo.com. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. 4. Center of Abdominal Surgery, Vilnius University Hospital Santara Clinics, Santariskiu Street, LT-08661, Vilnius, Lithuania. 5. Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. 6. National Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the results of laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP), excisional hemorrhoidectomy (EH), and sutured mucopexy (MP). METHODS: A randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded, single-center prospective study. PATIENTS: Symptomatic 2nd- or 3rd-degree hemorrhoids patients. INTERVENTIONS: 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. OUTCOME MEASURES: Recurrence of symptoms requiring treatment, intensity, and duration of pain after the operation, patients' quality of life, fecal incontinence, and patients' evaluation of treatment. RESULTS: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. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: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.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the results of laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP), excisional hemorrhoidectomy (EH), and sutured mucopexy (MP). METHODS: A randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded, single-center prospective study. PATIENTS: Symptomatic 2nd- or 3rd-degree hemorrhoidspatients. INTERVENTIONS: 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. OUTCOME MEASURES: Recurrence of symptoms requiring treatment, intensity, and duration of pain after the operation, patients' quality of life, fecal incontinence, and patients' evaluation of treatment. RESULTS: 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. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: T H Rockwood; J M Church; J W Fleshman; R L Kane; C Mavrantonis; A G Thorson; S D Wexner; D Bliss; A C Lowry Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Steven Brown; Jim Tiernan; Katie Biggs; Daniel Hind; Neil Shephard; Mike Bradburn; Allan Wailoo; Abualbishr Alshreef; Lizzie Swaby; Angus Watson; Simon Radley; Oliver Jones; Paul Skaife; Anil Agarwal; Pasquale Giordano; Marc Lamah; Mark Cartmell; Justin Davies; Omar Faiz; Karen Nugent; Andrew Clarke; Angus MacDonald; Phillip Conaghan; Paul Ziprin; Rohit Makhija Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Angus Jm Watson; Jonathan Cook; Jemma Hudson; Mary Kilonzo; Jessica Wood; Hanne Bruhn; Steven Brown; Brian Buckley; Finlay Curran; David Jayne; Malcolm Loudon; Ramesh Rajagopal; Alison McDonald; John Norrie Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Håvard D Rørvik; Karl Styr; Lars Ilum; Grant L McKinstry; Tove Dragesund; André H Campos; Birgitte Brandstrup; Gunnar Olaison Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Donatas Danys; Julius Pacevicius; Gabija Makunaite; Rolandas Palubeckas; Antanas Mainelis; Narimantas Markevicius; Kestutis Strupas; Tomas Poskus Journal: Open Med (Wars) Date: 2020-03-08