Randomized controlled trial of bipolar diathermy vs ultrasonic scalpel for closed hemorrhoidectomy

An umbrella review of the surgical performance of Harmonic ultrasonic devices and impact on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

For thirty years, the Harmonic scalpel has been used for precise dissection, sealing and transection. There are numerous meta-analyses on individual surgical procedures with Harmonic, but no overarching review covering all the areas. This umbrella review seeks to summarize the clinical results from the use of Harmonic across surgical fields and broadly quantify its effects on patient outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases were searched for meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Harmonic devices to conventional techniques or advanced bipolar (ABP) devices. For each procedure type, the most comprehensive MAs were evaluated. RCTs not already analysed in a MA were also included. Operating time, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, pain, and overall complications were evaluated, and the methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four systematic literature reviews were identified on colectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, gastrectomy, mastectomy, flap harvesting, cholecystectomy, thyroidectomy, tonsillectomy, and neck dissection. There were also 83 RCTs included. In every MA evaluated, Harmonic devices were associated with either statistically significant or numerical improvements in every outcome compared with conventional techniques; most MAs reported a reduction in operating time of ≥ 25 min. Harmonic versus ABP device MAs in colectomy and thyroidectomy showed no significant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Across surgical procedures, Harmonic devices demonstrated improved patient outcomes for operating time, length of stay, intraoperative bleeding, drainage volume, pain, and overall complications compared to conventional techniques. Additional studies are required to assess differences between Harmonic and ABP devices.

Efficacy of Harmonic Scalpel Versus Bipolar Diathermy in Hemorrhoidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nine Randomized Controlled Trials

Hemorrhoidectomy is one of the most common surgical interventions to remove the third and fourth degrees of prolapse hemorrhoid. We carried out this systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of harmonic scalpel (HS) versus bipolar diathermy (BD) methods in terms of decreasing intraoperative and postoperative morbidities among patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. Suitable citations were found utilizing digital medical sources, including the CENTRAL, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, from inception until December 2022. Only RCTs that matched the inclusion requirements were selected. We used the updated Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool (version 2) to assess the quality of the involved citations. The Review Manager (version 5.4 for Windows) was used to perform the pooled analysis. Data were pooled and reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) in random-effects models. Overall, there was no significant difference between HS and BD in terms of decreasing intraoperative morbidities like operative time, intraoperative blood loss, mean duration of hospital stay, and mean duration of first bowel movement (P>0.05). Similarly, the rate of postoperative complications like pain, bleeding, urinary retention, anal stenosis, flatus incontinence, and wound edema; was similar in both groups with no significant difference (P>0.05). In conclusion, our pooled analysis revealed there was no substantial difference between HS and BD in terms of intraoperative and postoperative endpoints. Additional RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to consolidate the power and quality of the presented evidence.

Linear Pinched Hemorrhoidectomy: A Retrospective Observational Study (An Innovative, Simplified Hemorrhoidectomy)

OBJECTIVES

There was an urgent need to create a simple, reliable hemorrhoidectomy procedure for high-risk cases in our university hospital. We performed linear pinched hemorrhoidectomy (LPH) and evaluated its effectiveness compared to conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH).

METHODS

We included 215 Goligher grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoid cases in this study. Of these cases, 167 were in the CH group, and 48 patients were in the LPH group. We retrospectively compared the lengths of hospital stay, operative times, blood loss, and complications.

RESULTS

The age tended to be higher in the LPH group (mean: CH 60 years, LPH 68 years). In the univariate analysis, LPH had more resections, shorter operative times, and less blood loss. LPH had shorter operative times in the multivariate analysis, less blood loss, and more anticoagulant use. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of complications. Five and two patients in the CH and LPH groups, respectively, had postoperative hemorrhage requiring hemostasis. Only the CH group had three and four cases of anal stenosis and wound edema, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We studied simplified hemorrhoidectomy using an ultrasonic scalpel and cylindrical proctoscope in a university hospital. We found that it a useful procedure with few complications and was easy for residents to learn. We believe that advances in surgical devices will make it possible to perform safer and simpler hemorrhoidectomy in the future.

Comparison of Effects of Vessel-Sealing Devices and Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy on Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the early and late results of use of LigaSure, Harmonic Scalpel, and conventional hemorrhoidectomy in hemorrhoidectomy, to determine the least painful method, and to investigate the relationship between pain perception and personal differences in hemorrhoid bundles.

Material/Methods

Ninety patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy between 2014 and 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. We investigated the duration of hospitalization and the presence of bleeding, incontinence, perianal wetness, urinary retention, stenosis, and recurrence during follow-up after surgery. Analgesic requirement was determined by Patient-Controlled Analgesia, as well as pain score by use of the Visual Analog Score and patient satisfaction by Short Form-36. We also assessed the relationship between pain and lateral thermal damage, the number of peripheral nerves, number of excised bundles, and the number of thrombosed vessels, as determined by histopathological examination.

Results

No differences were found among the 3 methods in the duration of hospitalization, the presence of bleeding, fecal incontinence, perianal wetness, urinal retention, anal stenosis, recurrence rate, VAS, analgesic consumption, or results of the SF-36.

There was no difference in the number of bundles, thrombosed vessels, or number of nerve fibers in a bundle, but the LigaSure Hemorrhoidectomy had more lateral thermal damage (p<0.001). While there was a difference between VAS of day 1 and 7 according to the hemorrhoid bundles, there was no difference in the other parameters.

Conclusions

There was no difference among the 3 methods in terms of complications, postoperative pain, or patient satisfaction, and pain intensity was positively correlated with the number of excised bundles.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes and effectiveness of surgical treatments for haemorrhoids

BACKGROUND

The aim was to compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of surgical treatments for haemorrhoids.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials were identified by means of a systematic review. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method in WinBUGS.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight trials were included with 7827 participants and 11 surgical treatments for grade III and IV haemorrhoids. Open, closed and radiofrequency haemorrhoidectomies resulted in significantly more postoperative complications than transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD), LigaSure™ and Harmonic® haemorrhoidectomies. THD had significantly less postoperative bleeding than open and stapled procedures, and resulted in significantly fewer emergency reoperations than open, closed, stapled and LigaSure™ haemorrhoidectomies. Open and closed haemorrhoidectomies resulted in more pain on postoperative day 1 than stapled, THD, LigaSure™ and Harmonic® procedures. After stapled, LigaSure™ and Harmonic® haemorrhoidectomies patients resumed normal daily activities earlier than after open and closed procedures. THD provided the earliest time to first bowel movement. The stapled and THD groups had significantly higher haemorrhoid recurrence rates than the open, closed and LigaSure™ groups. Recurrence of haemorrhoidal symptoms was more common after stapled haemorrhoidectomy than after open and LigaSure™ operations. No significant difference was identified between treatments for anal stenosis, incontinence and perianal skin tags.

CONCLUSION

Open and closed haemorrhoidectomies resulted in more postoperative complications and slower recovery, but fewer haemorrhoid recurrences. THD and stapled haemorrhoidectomies were associated with decreased postoperative pain and faster recovery, but higher recurrence rates. The advantages and disadvantages of each surgical treatment should be discussed with the patient before surgery to allow an informed decision to be made.

Clinical Outcome Following Hemorrhoid Surgery: a Narrative Review

Surgical therapy guaranties satisfactory results, which are significantly better than those obtained with conservative therapies, especially for Grade III and IV hemorrhoids. In this review, we present and discuss the results of the most diffuse surgical techniques for hemorrhoids. Traditional surgery for hemorrhoids aims to remove the hemorrhoids, with closure (Fergusson's technique) or without closure (Milligan-Morgan procedure) of the ensuing defect. This traditional approach is effective, but causes a significant postoperative pain because of wide external wounds in the innervated perianal skin. Stapled hemorrhoidopexy, proposed by Longo, has gained a vast acceptance because of less postoperative pain and faster return to normal activities. In the recent literature, a significant incidence of recurrence after stapled hemorrhoidopexy was reported, when compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Double stapler hemorrhoidopexy may be an alternative to simple stapled hemorrhoidopexy to reduce the recurrence in advanced hemorrhoidal prolapse. Transanal hemorrhoidal deartertialization was showed to be as effective as stapled hemorrhoidopexy in terms of treatment success, complications, and incidence recurrence. However, further high-quality trials are recommended to assess the efficacy and safety of this technique.