Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2015
Ligation anopexy versus hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of second- and third-degree hemorrhoids.
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Scoring systems as outcomes assessment of the treatments for haemorrhoidal disease: a systematic review of the literature.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Pooled it
- Transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus open hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Techniques in coloproctology · 2016Pooled it
- Cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy for hemorrhoids: Methods, feasibility and efficacy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015Article
- Treatment of hemorrhoids: A coloproctologist's view.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare ligation anopexy (LA) and conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) in treatment of second- and third-degree hemorrhoids.
methodsA prospective controlled randomized clinical trial included 100 patients who underwent CH (CH group) and 100 patients who underwent LA (LA group). A detailed history was taken from all the patients. The effectiveness, safety, postoperative complications, operative time, length of hospital stay, time until first bowel movement, time until return to work, and postoperative pain score were assessed.
resultsThere was no significant difference between groups regarding age, sex, and preoperative symptoms. The LA group had significantly shorter operative times, earlier first bowel movement, and an earlier return to work/activities. The postoperative pain score in the LA group was significantly lower than that in the CH group on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 after surgery. There was no significant difference between groups as regards postoperative complications.
conclusionsLA is safe, and as effective as CH in the treatment of grade II and grade III hemorrhoids, with shorter operative times, earlier mobilization, and lower postoperative pain scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25421703What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.