Trial reportBJS open2022
Tamponade dressing versus no dressing after haemorrhoidectomy: multicentre, randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison the effect of gelatin sponge and epinephrine-soaked gauze for hemostasis and pain control after hemorrhoidal surgery.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSymptomatic haemorrhoids are a common anorectal disorder. The aim of the study was to investigate whether the omission of tamponade dressings after haemorrhoidectomy reduces postoperative pain without increasing the risk of severe bleeding.
methodThis was an open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 German hospitals. All patients with third- or fourth-degree haemorrhoids undergoing haemorrhoidectomy were considered eligible for selection in the intervention (no dressing) or control group (tamponade applied). Two co-primary outcomes were analysed by testing hierarchically ordered hypotheses. First, maximum pain intensity within 48 h after surgery was compared between the groups (superiority). This was followed by an analysis of severe bleeding complications, defined as any bleeding requiring surgical re-intervention within 7 days (non-inferiority). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, haemoglobin levels, and adverse events.
resultsOut of 950 patients screened, 754 were randomized and 725 received intervention (366 patients in the intervention and 359 patients in the control group). In the group with tamponade dressings, median pain intensity on the 0 to 10 scale was 6 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 4-7). Patients without tamponade dressings reported significantly less pain (median 5 (i.q.r. 3-7), P < 0.001). In each group, five patients (1.4 per cent) experienced severe bleeding. The absolute difference for the severe bleeding rate was -0.03 per cent with the 90 per cent confidence interval ranging from -1.47 per cent to +1.41 per cent, in line with the non-inferiority aim. No significant between-group difference was found for secondary outcomes.
conclusionsThe practice of inserting tamponade dressings after haemorrhoidectomy correlates with increased postoperative pain and does not provide benefits in terms of reduced postoperative bleeding. REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00011590.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.