Literature DB >> 9556238

Surgical treatment of piles: prospective, randomized study of Parks vs. Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.

S B Hosch1, W T Knoefel, U Pichlmeier, V Schulze, C Busch, K A Gawad, C E Broelsch, J R Izbicki.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The present prospective, randomized clinical trial compares the outcome of surgical hemorrhoidectomy according to Parks and Milligan-Morgan in terms of hospital stay, duration of incapacity to work, symptom relief, length of morbidity, and patient convenience.
METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with third or fourth degree internal hemorrhoids were randomly allocated to the two groups. Before surgery, all patients were interviewed using a standard questionnaire, followed by rectal examination. All patients underwent a follow-up interview and examinations 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the operation.
RESULTS: No serious postoperative complications were seen. Length of hospital stay (3.2 days for Parks hemorrhoidectomy vs. 4.6 days for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 and 2.6, respectively; P = 0.02) and mean duration of incapacity to work (12.3 days for Parks hemorrhoidectomy vs. 20.2 days for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.7 and 10.2, respectively; P < 0.001) differed significantly between the Milligan-Morgan and Parks patients. Until two weeks after the operation, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy patients experienced significantly more pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that both operations are safe, easy to perform, and lead to satisfactory results. However, the Parks procedure is the preferred option, because it minimizes patients' postoperative discomfort, is more economic, has a significantly reduced hospital stay, and has a shorter time for return to work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9556238     DOI: 10.1007/BF02238242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  8 in total

1.  [Proctological diseases in routine urologic practice].

Authors:  J U Bock; J Jongen; H G Peleikis; S H Stübinger
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  [Haemorrhoidal suffering].

Authors:  G Pühse; F Raulf
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  A literature review on the role of chemical sphincterotomy after Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy.

Authors:  Muhammad Rafay Sameem Siddiqui; Chuk Abraham-Igwe; Arun Shangumanandan; Veronica Grassi; Ian Swift; Al Mutaz Abulafi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Botulinum Toxin Injection for Analgesic Effect after Hemorrhoidectomy: A Randomized Control Trial.

Authors:  Siripong Sirikurnpiboon; Paiboon Jivapaisarnpong
Journal:  J Anus Rectum Colon       Date:  2020-10-29

5.  Prospective randomized trial comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus closed Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy.

Authors:  K S Ho; Y H Ho
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 3.781

6.  Comparative study of hemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation in treatment of second and third degree hemorrhoids in kashmir.

Authors:  Mushtaq A Gagloo; S Wardul Hijaz; S Aijaz Nasir; Arjmand Reyaz; I H Bakshi; Nisar A Chowdary; Sameer A Naqash; Banday M Sharief
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 0.656

7.  Impact of less invasive treatments including sclerotherapy with a new agent and hemorrhoidopexy for prolapsing internal hemorrhoids.

Authors:  Yukihiko Tokunaga; Hirokazu Sasaki
Journal:  Int Surg       Date:  2013 Jul-Sep

8.  An evaluation of Milligan-Morgan and Ferguson procedures for haemorrhoidectomy at Liaquat University Hospital Jamshoro, Hyderabad, Pakistan.

Authors:  Abdul Razaque Shaikh; Abdul Ghafoor Dalwani; Nasarullah Soomro
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.088

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.