ISSN:
1530-0358
Keywords:
Hemorrhoidectomy
;
Prospective, randomized study
;
Parks procedure
;
Milligan-Morgan procedure
;
Treatment of prolapsing piles
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Medicine
Notes:
Abstract PURPOSE: The present prospective, randomized clinical trial compares the outcome of surgical hemorrhoidectomy according to Parks and Milligan-Morgan in terms of hospital stay, duration of incapacity to work, symptom relief, length of morbidity, and patient convenience. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with third or fourth degree internal hemorrhoids were randomly allocated to the two groups. Before surgery, all patients were interviewed using a standard questionnaire, followed by rectal examination. All patients underwent a follow-up interview and examinations 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the operation. RESULTS: No serious postoperative complications were seen. Length of hospital stay (3.2 days for Parks hemorrhoidectomyvs. 4.6 days for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 and 2.6, respectively;P=0.02) and mean duration of incapacity to work (12.3 days for Parks hemorrhoidectomyvs. 20.2 days for Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy; 95 percent confidence interval, 5.7 and 10.2, respectively;P〈0.001) differed significantly between the Milligan-Morgan and Parks patients. Until two weeks after the operation, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy patients experienced significantly more pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that both operations are safe, easy to perform, and lead to satisfactory results. However, the Parks procedure is the preferred option, because it minimizes patients' postoperative discomfort, is more economic, has a significantly reduced hospital stay, and has a shorter time for return to work.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02238242
