Northern Linconshire & Goole NHS Foundation trust
Goole, North Lincolnshire, DN14 6RX, United Kingdom
NCT Number: NCT01342991
This is a randomised trial to compare both the procedures and the difference in their immediate postoperative pain, recovery and quality of life.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Goole, North Lincolnshire, DN14 6RX, United Kingdom
Haemorrhoidectomy (excision of haemorrhoids) is the procedure of choice for grade 3 & 4 symptomatic haemorrhoids. The standard technique in the UK (open Milligan-Morgan) is to excise the haemorrhoids under general anaesthetic (typically using electrocautery) leaving raw areas in anal canal. As a result, patients often experience significant post operative pain which can impact on patient function for weeks following surgery. This would be considered as the gold standard for the operative treatment for haemorrhoids. Due to the difficult post operative recovery of this procedure, alternative techniques for performing haemorrhoidectomy have been explored. One approach, which is gaining some popularity, is stapled haemorrhoidectomy [1]. In this technique, a circular stapling device is used to excise proximal mucosa in order to disconnect the haemorrhoidal blood supply and to pull up the haemorrhoidal mass. The edges of the excised mucosa are simultaneously closed with a row of staples. In a recent meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials including 2056 patients, stapled haemorrhoidectomy was associated with reduced postoperative pain and reduction in return to activity by nearly 12 days in comparison to open haemorrhoidectomy [2]. Although postoperative complication rates were similar, stapled haemorrhoidectomy was associated with significantly more recurrences in the longer term (relative risk 2.29). The stapled haemorrhoidectomy technique has not gained universal acceptance. This may be related to the cost and availability of stapling devices in many centres.
Unlike specialized stapling devices, lasers are widely available in the operating theatre and are used in many operations to cauterise tissue. The resulting burn is superficial in comparison to electrocautery. Consequently, lasers have been used to perform open haemorrhoidectomy with the expectation of reducing post operative pain. However, randomised trials comparing the use of lasers versus cold scalpel for open haemorrhoidectomy have shown no significant differences in post operative pain [3]. Although, the laser appears to offer no advantage in open haemorrhoidal procedures, an alternative technique for laser haemorrhoidectomy has been developed by Peter Thompson from Laser Haemorrhoid Centre in Phoenix, Arizona. In this alternative technique, a laser is used to seal the raw mucosal edges after excision of the piles. In common with stapled haemorrhoidectomy, the mucosa is sealed closed rather than left open. Consequently, patients appear to experience markedly less post operative pain. The technique is also simple and quick with a shallow learning curve. Due to the speed and relative comfort of the procedure, patients may be routinely operated on using sedation and local anaesthetic, rather than full general anaesthetic which is standard practice for most haemorrhoidectomies.
Over the last 2 years,the investigators have performed laser haemorrhoidectomy for 60 patients. The age range was 32 to 81 years .The ratio for male: female was 31:29. All were done under local anaesthesia with sedation except one (1.6%) which was converted to general anaesthesia. All patients except 2 (3.5%) were discharged within two hours of operation. One was delayed due to administration of general anaesthesia and the second one was admitted for post operative bleeding and was actively observed for three days, after which he was discharged. There were four re-admissions (6.6%), two had post operative oedema & two had oedema and pain. All of them were actively observed and discharged later. Four patients (6.6%) also developed chronic anal fissures post operatively, two of them healed with six weeks course of Glyceryl Tri Nitrate (GTN) cream and the other two are on conservative management for non-healing fissures.
The investigators wish to objectively determine whether laser closed haemorrhoidectomy is associated with significantly less post operative pain and an earlier return to function in comparison to the Milligan-Morgan Haemorrhoidectomy which is the standard procedure performed across the trust.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The intervention comprises laser haemorrhoidectomy
This procedure will be performed under local anaesthetic with sedation as a day case
The haemorrhoids are excised using sharp dissection (over a clamp) and the cut edges are sealed using CO2 laser.
Pre-operative local anaesthesia will be given
Other names: Laser Seal Haemorrhoidectomy
Time frame: 6 weeks post-operatively
Visual Analogue Score (1 to 10) willbe used to quantitatively assess pain outcomes.
Time frame: Immediately pre-operatively and again at 6 weeks post-operatively
SF12 forms will be filled by the patients pre-operatively and again at 6 weeks post-operatively to assess any change in the quality of life this procedure may provide and compare the results between the two procedures.
Time frame: 6 weeks post-operatively
patients maintain a pain medication diary in which they document the amount of analgesia they have consumed in the post-operative period.
They are all given a standard regime of analgesics post-operatively unless there are any contra-indications.
Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Other
Randomised Controlled Trial of Open Milligan-Morgan Haemorrhoidectomy Versus Laser Closed Haemorrhoidectomy
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT04943666
Cardiovascular Diseases, Digestive System Diseases
Moscow, Russia
View Trial DetailsNCT04535765
Cardiovascular Diseases, Digestive System Diseases
Taipei, Taiwan
View Trial DetailsNCT01615575
Cardiovascular Diseases, Digestive System Diseases
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
View Trial DetailsNCT01301209
Cardiovascular Diseases, Digestive System Diseases
Vienna, State of Vienna, Austria
View Trial Details