Ligasure™ Hemorrhoidectomy versus Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy: Comparison in Outcome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhoids are a common problem faced in the surgical practice that cause a variety of symptoms ranging from bleeding per rectum to prolapsed, non-reducible and painful anal masses. Therefore, hemorrhoidectomy is one of most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. AIM: In this study, we will compare between the conventional surgical method and between LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 120 patients underwent hemorrhoidectomy by conventional and LigaSure™ method between September 2015 and September 2018 in Al-Kafeel hospital in Karbala city in Iraq. All cases underwent surgery by the three authors under regional anesthesia or general anesthesia by anesthetic team. A thorough history taking and physical examination were done and an informed consent has been taken from each patient before the surgery. Conventional hemorrhoidectomy was done for 50 patients randomly selected. The operation was done in the open method (Milligan Morgan’s). LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy was done for 70 patients randomly selected as well. Quantification of intra-operative bleeding was done by counting the number of gauzes. Patients were evaluated 5 days and a month and 3 months after the operation for complications and improvement of symptoms. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22.0. RESULTS: There were significant differences regarding the operation time, number of gauzes soaked with blood, hospital stay, pain score, post-operative bleeding, wound infection, residual mass, fecal incontinence and anal stenosis in favor of the LigaSure™ method. There was no significant difference regarding urine retention and post-operative discharge between the two methods. CONCLUSION: LigaSure™ hemorrhoidectomy can be a good alternative to conventional methods to reduce pain and make a more rapid recovery after hemorrhoidal surgery.