Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: CAB, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index
Online ISSN 1827-1642
Giovanni MILITO 1, Giorgio LISI 2, Elena ARONADIO 1, Michela CAMPANELLI 3, Dario VENDITTI 1, Simona GRANDE 4, Michele GRANDE 1
1 Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; 2 Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Verona, Borgo Roma, Verona, Italy; 3 Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; 4 Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Messina, Messina, Italy
BACKGROUND: Haemorrhoidectomy is considered the most efficient method to treat haemorrhoids of III and IV grades. The aim of this study is to compare conventional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy and radiofrequency haemorrhoidectomy based on a large series of patients.
METHODS: Between June 2001 and June 2014, 1000 patients have been treated with radiofrequency haemorrhoidectomy (Group A) and 500 patients have been treated with diathermy (Group B) as a day-case procedure. Operating time, postoperative pain score, hospital stay, early and late postoperative complications, wound healing time and time to return to normal activities were assessed.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was seven years. The mean operating time for radiofrequency haemorrhoidectomy was shorter than diathermy but not significantly. Patients treated with radiofrequency had significantly less postoperative pain (measured on a visual analogue scale; p value = 0.001), a shorter wound healing time, less time off work and postoperative complications (p value = 0.001) than patients who had diathermy. Neither wound healing nor mean hospital stay (day-case surgery) were significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency haemorrhoidectomy is a valid alternative to the conventional diathermy technique, due to the reduction of operative time, postoperative pain, early and late complication rate.