Milligan-Morgan (Open) Versus Ferguson Haemorrhoidectomy (Closed): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published...

The purpose of this article is to systematically analyse the randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Ferguson or closed haemorrhoidectomy (CH) versus open haemorrhoidectomy (OH) or Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy in the management of haemorrhoidal disease (HD).

RCTs on the effectiveness of CH and OH in the management of HD were analysed systematically using RevMan(®), and combined outcome was expressed as odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference.

Eleven CRTs encompassing 1326 patients were analysed systematically. There was significant heterogeneity among included trials. Therefore, in the random effects model, CH was associated with a reduced post-operative pain (SMD, -0.36; 95 % CI, -0.64, -0.07; z = 2.45; p = 0.01), faster wound healing (OR, 0.08; 95 % CI, 0.02, 0.24; z = 4.33; p < 0.0001), lesser risk of post-operative bleeding (OR, 0.50; 95 % CI, 0.27, 0.91; z = 2.27; p < 0.02) and prolonged duration of operation (SMD, 6.10; 95 % CI, 3.21, 8.98; z = 4.13; p < 0.0001). But the variables such as pain on defecation (SMD, -0.33; 95 % CI, -0.68, 0.03; z = 1.82; p = 0.07), length of hospital stay, post-operative complications, HD recurrence and risk of surgical site infection were similar in both groups.

CH has clinically measurable advantages over OH in terms of reduced post-operative pain, lower risk of post-operative bleeding and faster wound healing.