Dr Emile Tan and colleagues from England evaluated the short-term outcomes of haemorrhoidectomy using a LigaSure vessel sealing device vs the conventional approach.
The researchers identified randomized controlled trials published between 2002 and 2006 comparing short-term outcomes for LigaSure vs conventional hemorrhoidectomy.
The team extracted data on operative parameters, short-term complications, and postoperative recovery.
|Postoperative hemorrhage was comparable between the 2 groups|
|Archives of Surgery|
The team assessed trials using a modified Jadad score.
Random-effects meta-analytical techniques were used in the analysis.
The researchers found 9 randomized controlled trials with matched selection criteria reporting on 525 patients.
The team reported that 266 patients underwent LigaSure, and 259 underwent conventional hemorrhoidectomy.
The research team found that operative time, and blood loss was significantly reduced following LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy.
Pain the day after the operation measured by the visual analog scale was significantly reduced following LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy.
The researchers found that there was a decrease in time taken to return to work or normal activity, which was of marginal significance with LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy
Incidence of postoperative hemorrhage, incidence of anal stenosis, and fecal and flatus incontinence was comparable between the 2 groups.
Dr Tan's team concluded, "LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy results in a significant reduction in operative time and blood loss, but it may not confer any advantage over the conventional operation in terms of postoperative pain."
"Length of hospital stay, or time taken to return to work or normal activity".
"The expediency of the device must be weighed against its additional cost."
"Long-term evaluation of outcomes and morbidity are still needed."