Anal mucosectomy for haemorrhoids: should we start to speak Chinese?
Details
Request a copy Under indefinite embargo.
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
UNIL restricted access
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_413AFBAA809A
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Anal mucosectomy for haemorrhoids: should we start to speak Chinese?
Journal
Colorectal Disease
ISSN
1463-1318 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1462-8910
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2013
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
15
Number
4
Pages
e186-e189
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Journal ArticlePublication Status: ppublish. PDF type: Original article
Abstract
AIM: Circular stapled mucosectomy is the standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic third-degree haemorrhoids and mucosal prolapse. Recently, new staplers made in China have entered the market offering an alternative to the PPH stapling devices. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the safety and efficacy of these new devices.
METHODS: Fifty patients with symptomatic third-degree haemorrhoids were randomized to mucosectomy either by using stapler A (CPH32; Frankenman International Ltd, Hong Kong, China; n = 25) or stapler B (PPH03; Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Spreitenbach, Switzerland; n = 25). All procedures were performed by two experienced surgeons. After the stapler was fired by one surgeon, the other surgeon, who was blinded for stapler type, evaluated the stapler line. Postoperative outcome including pain, complications and patient satisfaction were analysed.
RESULTS: Demographic and clinical features were no different between the groups. There was no significant difference regarding venous bleeding (P = 0.55), but arterial bleeding was significantly more frequent when stapler B was used (P < 0.001). This led to significantly more suture ligations (P = 0.002). However, no differences regarding operation time (P = 0.99), weight of the resected mucosa (P = 0.81) and height of the stapler line (anterior, P = 0.18; posterior, P = 0.65) were detected. Postoperative pain scores (visual analogue scale) and patient satisfaction were no different either (P = 0.91 and P = 0.78, respectively). No recurrence or incontinence occurred during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: CPH32 required significantly fewer sutures for bleeding control along the stapler line after circular mucosectomy. However, operation time, rate of postoperative complications and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups.
METHODS: Fifty patients with symptomatic third-degree haemorrhoids were randomized to mucosectomy either by using stapler A (CPH32; Frankenman International Ltd, Hong Kong, China; n = 25) or stapler B (PPH03; Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Spreitenbach, Switzerland; n = 25). All procedures were performed by two experienced surgeons. After the stapler was fired by one surgeon, the other surgeon, who was blinded for stapler type, evaluated the stapler line. Postoperative outcome including pain, complications and patient satisfaction were analysed.
RESULTS: Demographic and clinical features were no different between the groups. There was no significant difference regarding venous bleeding (P = 0.55), but arterial bleeding was significantly more frequent when stapler B was used (P < 0.001). This led to significantly more suture ligations (P = 0.002). However, no differences regarding operation time (P = 0.99), weight of the resected mucosa (P = 0.81) and height of the stapler line (anterior, P = 0.18; posterior, P = 0.65) were detected. Postoperative pain scores (visual analogue scale) and patient satisfaction were no different either (P = 0.91 and P = 0.78, respectively). No recurrence or incontinence occurred during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: CPH32 required significantly fewer sutures for bleeding control along the stapler line after circular mucosectomy. However, operation time, rate of postoperative complications and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups.
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
03/05/2013 20:38
Last modification date
06/06/2023 6:53