Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Open compared with closed haemorrhoidectomy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

This review compares the most popular techniques in managing the wounds after excisional haemorrhoidectomy, which are either to lay the wounds open or to close them.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials were identified from the major electronic databases using the search terms “hemorrhoid*” and “haemorrhoid*.” Duration of operation, pain, length of hospital stay, time off work, time for wound healing, patient satisfaction, continence, manometry findings and complications were assessed. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed as appropriate or possible.

Results

Six trials including 686 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 19.5 months. Quantitative meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in cure rates between the two techniques (relative risk, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.86 to 2.2; p=0.191). Open haemor-rhoidectomy was more quickly performed (weighted mean difference, 1.03 min; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.54; p<0.001). Closed haemorrhoidectomy wounds showed faster healing (weighted mean difference, 1.2 weeks; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.55; p<0.001). Hospital stay, maximum pain score, total and individual complication rates were not significantly different.

Conclusions

Apart from faster wound healing after closed haemorrhoidectomy, open and closed techniques appeared equally effective and safe. However, there were only a few studies which presented information in different ways, and statistical heterogeneity was high.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MacRae HM, McLeod RS (1995) Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatment modalities: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 38:687–694

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nisar PJ, Acheson AG, Neal KR, Schoefield JH (2004) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy: systemic review of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1837–1845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Milligan ETC, Morgan CN, Jones LE, Officer R (1937) Surgical anatomy of the anal canal and the operative treatment of haemorrhoids. Lancet ii:1119–1124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferguson JA, Heaton JR (1959) Closed hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2:176–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke MD, Oxman AS (2002) Cochrane reviewers’ handbook. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Update Software, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  6. Parks AG (1956) Surgical treatment of haemorrhoids. Br J Surg 43:337–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mathai V, Ong BC, Ho YH (1996) Randomized controlled trial of lateral internal sphincterotomy with haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 83:380–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mikuni N, Oya M, Komatsu J, Yamana T (2002) A prospective randomized comparison between an open hemorrhoidectomy and a semi-closed (semi-open) hemorrhoidectomy. Surg Today 32:40–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reis Neto JA, Quilici FA, Cordeiro F, Reis Junior JA (1992) Open versus semi-open hemorrhoidectomy: a random trial. Int Surg 77:84–90

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Arbman G, Krook, H, Haapaniemi S (2000) Closed vs. open hemorrhoidectomy — is there any difference? Dis Colon Rectum 43:31–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M, Leong AFPK (1997) Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 84:1729–1730

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carapeti EA, Kamm MA, McDonald PJ, Chadwick SJD, Phillips RKS (1999) Randomized trial of open versus closed day-case haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 86:612–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gencosmanoglu R, Sad O, Koc D, Inceoglu R (2002) Hemorrhoicectomy: open or closed technique? A prospective randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 45:70–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arroyo A, Perez F, Miranda E et al (2004) open versus closed day-case haemorrhoidectomy: is there any difference? Results of a prospective randomized study. Int J Colorect Dis 19:370–373

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Uba AF, Obekpa PO, Ardill W (2004) open versus closed haemorrhoidectomy. Nigerian Postgrad Med J 11:79–83

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Johannsson HO, Pahlman L, Graf W (2006) Randomized clinical trial of the effects on anal function of Milligan-Morgan versus Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 93:1208–1214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alderson P, Green S (eds) (2000) The Cochrane Collaboration Open Learning Material. Available at: http://www.cochranenet.org/openlearning/HTML/mod0.htm. (Accessed, 17 November 2006)

  20. Nisaar PJ, Acheson AG, Neal KR, Scholefield JH (2004) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy: systemic review of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1837–1845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ho KS, Ho YH (2006) Prospective randomized trial comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus closed Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Tech Coloproctol 10:193–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ho YH, Goh HS (1995) Unilateral anal electrosensation. Modified technique to improve quantification of anal sensory loss. Dis Colon Rectum 38:239–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ho YH, Cheong WK, Tsang C et al (2000) Stapled haemorrhoidectomy — cost and effectiveness. Randomized, controlled trial including incontinence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments at up to three months. Dis Colon Rectum 43:1666–1675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL (1992) Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 102:305S–311S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine and North Queensland Centre for Cancer Research, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia

    Y. H. Ho

  2. School of Public Health Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    P. G. Buettner

Authors
  1. Y. H. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. G. Buettner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. H. Ho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho, Y.H., Buettner, P.G. Open compared with closed haemorrhoidectomy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 11, 135–143 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-007-0343-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-007-0343-0

Key words

Search

Navigation