Haemorrhoidectomy with electrocautery or ultrashears and stapled haemorrhoidopexy

This study evaluated in a randomized, prospective manner the possible differences in operative time, postoperative pain and analgesic requirement, early complications, time off-work and patient satisfaction between patients undergoing haemorrhoidectomy using the electrocautery (ECH), UltraShears (ultrasonically activated scalpel; USH) or stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH).

Patients with symptomatic third-degree or fourth-degree haemorrhoids were randomized into one of the three groups: ECH, SH (PPH stapler; Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH, USA) or USH groups. The operative times and complications, if any, were recorded. An identical anaesthetic technique was used for all patients, and postoperative analgesia was also standardized according to the pain scores. Pain was evaluated preoperatively and at 8 and 24 h and 2, 7, 14 and 28 days, postoperatively, by means of a visual analogue scale. The numbers of narcotic and non-narcotic analgesics used, the time required for full return to daily activities and the incontinence scores at 4 months postoperatively were evaluated, as well as patient satisfaction.

No significant differences with respect to age or sex existed between the three groups, each consisting of 20 patients. USH was significantly faster than both ECH and SH (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons) in operation time, and SH was faster than ECH (P < 0.0001). Comparing any two groups, the mean pain scores in the ECH group were significantly higher than in the SH and USH groups at postoperative 8 and 24 h, and day 2, but the groups reached comparable pain scores at day 7, 14 and 28. The numbers of narcotic and non-narcotic analgesics used in the ECH group were significantly higher than in the SH and USH groups (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The early postoperative complication rate was higher in the ECH group (25%), compared with the SH (P = 0.017) and USH (P < 0.0001) groups. Only 12 patients (60%) in the ECH group could be discharged within the first postoperative 24 h, whereas all of the patients (100%) in the SH and 17 patients (85%) in the USH groups could be treated as day cases. The time required for full return to daily activities was similar in the SH and USH groups (P = 0.841), but it was significantly longer in the ECH group (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). The 70% patient satisfaction rate in the ECH group was significantly lower than in the SH (95%; P = 0.008) and the USH (100%, P = 0.002) groups.

Our short-term results have shown that SH and ultrasonic dissector haemorrhoidectomies were superior to ECH haemorrhoidectomy, in terms of surgical utility, postoperative pain, analgesic intake, time off-work and patient satisfaction. Some advantages of USH over SH also appeared.