Surgical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Conventional Diathermy Haemorrhoidectomy Versus Ligasure Haemorrhoidectomy: A Comparative Study
Keywords:
Haemorrhoidectomy, LigaSure, Conventional diathermy, Postoperative pain, Surgical outcomes, Recovery timeAbstract
Background: Haemorrhoids are a common anorectal condition often requiring surgical intervention in advanced stages. Various surgical techniques exist, with ongoing debate regarding the optimal approach for minimizing postoperative complications and improving recovery.
Objective: To evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes between patients undergoing conventional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy and those receiving Ligasure haemorrhoidectomy.
Methods: This was a single centre, hospital based, prospective observational comparative study conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Chettinad Hospital And Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu among patients operated between January 2024 and December 2024.
Results: The study included 30 patients, equally divided into two groups. Baseline characteristics such as age, gender, BMI, and presence of comorbidities were comparable between the groups, with no statistically significant differences. Postoperative pain, assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), showed a significant reduction over time in both groups. While immediate postoperative pain scores were similar, the Ligasure group reported significantly lower pain at 48 and 72 hours (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). By day 5, pain had nearly resolved in both groups, with no significant difference. Intraoperative parameters also favoured Ligasure, with significantly shorter operative time (47.5 vs. 64.2 minutes, p = 0.006) and lower blood loss (10.8 vs. 24.7 ml, p = 0.022). Postoperative recovery was faster in the Ligasure group, as evidenced by a shorter hospital stay (4.6 vs. 6.8 days, p = 0.007) and earlier return to work (13.6 vs. 18.2 days, p = 0.005). Conclusion: LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy demonstrated superior outcomes compared to conventional diathermy, with reduced pain, operative time, and faster recovery. These findings support its use as an effective and patient-friendly surgical option for advanced haemorrhoids
Downloads
References
Riss S, Weiser FA, Schwameis K, Riss T, Mittlböck M, Steiner G, et al. The prevalence of hemorrhoids in adults. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(2):215-20.
Mott T, Latimer K, Edwards C. Hemorrhoids: Diagnosis and Treatment Options. Am Fam Physician. 2018;97(3):172-9.
Lohsiriwat V. Hemorrhoids: from basic pathophysiology to clinical management. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(17):2009-17.
Johanson JF, Sonnenberg A. The prevalence of hemorrhoids and chronic constipation. An epidemiologic study. Gastroenterology. 1990;98(2):380-6.
Agarwal N, Singh K, Sheikh P, Mittal K, Mathai V, Kumar A. Executive Summary - The Association of Colon & Rectal Surgeons of India (ACRSI) Practice Guidelines for the Management of Haemorrhoids-2016. Indian J Surg. 2017;79(1):58-61.
Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part II: lower gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(3):741-54.
Loder PB, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ, Phillips RK. Haemorrhoids: pathology, pathophysiology and aetiology. Br J Surg. 1994;81(7):946-54.
Gentile M, De Rosa M, Carbone G, Pilone V, Mosella F, Forestieri P. LigaSure Haemorrhoidectomy versus Conventional Diathermy for IV-Degree Haemorrhoids: Is It the Treatment of Choice? A Randomized, Clinical Trial. ISRN Gastroenterol. 2011;2011:467258.
Nienhuijs SW, de Hingh IH. Pain after conventional versus Ligasure haemorrhoidectomy. A meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2010;8(4):269-73.
Palazzo FF, Francis DL, Clifton MA. Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 2002;89(2):154-7.
Tan EK, Cornish J, Darzi AW, Papagrigoriadis S, Tekkis PP. Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes of randomized controlled trials of LigaSure vs conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Arch Surg. 2007;142(12):1209-18.
Muzi MG, Milito G, Nigro C, Cadeddu F, Andreoli F, Amabile D, et al. Randomized clinical trial of LigaSure and conventional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 2007;94(8):937-42.
Friedman L, Furberg C, DeMets D, Reboussin D, Granger C. Fundamentals of Clinical Trials2015.
Bleday R, Pena JP, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM, Buls JG. Symptomatic hemorrhoids: current incidence and complications of operative therapy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35(5):477-81.
Mastakov MY, Buettner PG, Ho YH. Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing conventional excisional haemorrhoidectomy with LigaSure for haemorrhoids. Tech Coloproctol. 2008;12(3):229-39.
Milito G, Cadeddu F, Muzi MG, Nigro C, Farinon AM. Haemorrhoidectomy with Ligasure vs conventional excisional techniques: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(2):85-93.
Virk AK, Kansal R, Singh C, Mehta M, Arora B, Singh A, et al. A Retrospective Study of Milligan-Morgan Versus LigaSure Hemorrhoidectomy in the Treatment of Symptomatic Hemorrhoids at an Institute in North India. Cureus. 2024;16(8):e66430.
Franklin EJ, Seetharam S, Lowney J, Horgan PG. Randomized, Clinical Trial of Ligasure™ vs. Conventional Diathermy in Hemorrhoidectomy. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2003;46(10):1380-3.
Pavithra S, Felix Anand R, Shahid I, Imran Thariq A. Laser haemorrhoidectomy vs LIGASURE haemorrhoidectomy - A comparison of outcomes of the contemporary treatment modalities of grade 2-3 haemorrhoids and its correlation with patient compliance. AfrJBioSc. 2024;6(5):8020-34.
Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, Chandler JG. High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(6):876-8.
Sakr MF. LigaSure versus Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Tech Coloproctol. 2010;14(1):13-7.
Jayne DG, Botterill I, Ambrose NS, Brennan TG, Guillou PJ, O'Riordain DS. Randomized clinical trial of Ligasure versus conventional diathermy for day-case haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg. 2002;89(4):428-32.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
