ArticleTrials2023
Modified ultrasound scalpel haemorrhoidectomy versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy for mixed haemorrhoids: a study protocol for a single-blind randomised controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding home-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with chronic heart failure.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical observation on prognosis of mixed hemorrhoids treated with polidocanol injection combined with automatic elastic thread ligation operation.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Application Intention and Influencing Factors of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Patients with Mixed Hemorrhoids: A Cross-Sectional Study in China.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Rare rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor case: A case report and review of the literature.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Analgesic Efficacy of Shangdiao Music Combined with Diclofenac Sodium Suppositories after Mixed Haemorrhoid Surgery.Noise & healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHaemorrhoids are common and frequently occurring diseases in the clinical setting, and severe haemorrhoids require surgical treatment. There are various surgical methods to treat haemorrhoids, but each has advantages and disadvantages. In recent years, ultrasonic scalpels have been used in haemorrhoid surgery and have achieved good results. Ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy is safer and more effective in the surgical treatment of grade III and IV haemorrhoids, with less intraoperative bleeding, less postoperative pain, and fewer complications than diathermic therapy, electrosurgical haemorrhoidectomy, PROXIMATE® PPH haemorrhoidal circular stapler haemorrhoidopexy (PPH), and traditional haemorrhoidectomy. In previous reports, the majority of ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomies were performed as open procedures, with only the body of the haemorrhoid removed with the ultrasonic scalpel and the wound left open for drainage and natural healing. However, we performed a preliminary experiment with 12 patients who underwent open ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy in the early stage. The results showed that 8 patients had different degrees of postoperative bleeding, and 4 of them required a second haemostatic surgery under anaesthesia. Therefore, we modified the open ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy procedure by removing the mucosa of the internal haemorrhoid and closing the base of the incision with figure-eight penetrating sutures and designed this study protocol to evaluate its clinical efficacy and safety.
methodsA randomised single-blind parallel-controlled trial is proposed for this project, and patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be divided into a test group and a control group, with 39 patients in each group. The experimental group will be treated with modified ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy, and the control group will be treated with the Milligan-Morgan operation. The effectiveness of modified ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy for haemorrhoids will be objectively evaluated, including the incision healing time and the time for patients to return to normal activities, postoperative complications, evaluations of anal function 3 months and 6 months after surgery, an evaluation of quality of life 6 months after surgery, and an evaluation of the patient satisfaction rate 6 months after surgery. The safety assessment will consider all adverse and serious adverse events associated with the study treatment. DISCUSSION: The study was approved by the ethics committee. The first patient was registered on July 1 2021. The purpose of this trial will be to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the modified ultrasonic scalpel haemorrhoidectomy procedure for the treatment of mixed haemorrhoids and to provide an evidence base for the clinical promotion and application of the procedure. A limitation of this study is that only the patients will be single-blinded because the researchers and the patients cannot be blinded at the same time, which may produce certain bias in the results. In addition, the sample size of this study will be small, and the test results will only represent the findings from this clinical trial. In later stages, the sample size needs to be further expanded to improve the level of evidence. Despite its limitations, we hope the present study will help provide a more optimised surgical approach in the selection of haemorrhoid surgery.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration ID: ChiCTR2100047229). Registered on June 11, 2021.
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.