ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022
The necessity of preoperative enema preparation for hemorrhoidal surgery: a single-center comparative study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemorrhoidal surgery is a common treatment for high-grade hemorrhoids. The necessity of preoperative enema preparation (PEP) in hemorrhoidal surgery is inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate the benefit and safety of PEP in hemorrhoidal surgery.
methodsThis comparative study analyzed data from electronic medical record database and outpatient questionnaire archive. Data of patients who underwent hemorrhoidal surgery from March 2020 to February 2021 were obtained. Patients were allocated to either the PEP or non-PEP group. Primary outcome measurements were postoperative pain and oral analgesic use. Secondary outcomes were the number of days until first defecation, length of hospital stay, time to return to work, incidence of urinary retention, delayed bleeding, and local infection.
resultsData of 270 consecutive patients, with 130 and 140 in the PEP and non-PEP groups, respectively, who underwent hemorrhoidal surgery were analyzed. Most patients underwent stapled hemorrhoidopexy, with 106 (81.54%) in PEP group and 113 (80.71%) in non-PEP group. The mean pain score was significantly higher in PEP than in non-PEP group at day 0 (6.21 ± 3.23 vs 5.31 ± 3.14), day 1 (5.79 ± 2.89 vs 4.68 ± 3.02), and day 2 (5.35 ± 2.86 vs 4.42 ± 2.76). No significant differences in postoperative recovery or complications rate were noted between groups.
conclusionOur findings revealed that performing PEP before hemorrhoidal surgery produced no benefit when compared with not performing PEP. Typically, the procedure of PEP is inconvenient and discomforting for patients. Therefore, we suggest that it can be omitted in hemorrhoidal surgery.
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.