ReviewCureus2025
A Comparative Analysis of Gastrointestinal Recovery and Pain Management Outcomes in Stapled Versus Open Hemorrhoidectomy: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stapled hemorrhoidectomy (SH) and open hemorrhoidectomy (OH) are widely used surgical techniques for managing hemorrhoidal disease. SH is often preferred for its potential benefits, such as reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery, while OH is traditionally employed in advanced or complex cases. However, the comparative impact of these techniques on gastrointestinal function and pain management remains unclear, necessitating further evaluation. This meta-analysis is aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of SH and OH in patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids, focusing on operative parameters, postoperative pain, recovery, complications, and recurrence. A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Studies included were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and quasi-experimental studies published in English until July 2023, comparing gastrointestinal recovery and pain outcomes between SH and OH. The primary outcomes were gastrointestinal recovery, measured by time to resumption of normal diet and bowel movements, and pain management, assessed by postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, complication rates, and recurrence. Data from eligible studies were pooled, and random-effects models were used to estimate the weighted mean differences and odds ratios (OR) for each outcome. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I² tests. Seven studies involving 292 patients met the inclusion criteria. SH consistently demonstrated advantages over OH regarding pain management, gastrointestinal recovery, and hospital stay. SH patients reported significantly lower pain scores, reduced analgesic use by 35% on average, and faster recovery, with statistically significant results (p<0.05). SH patients also had a shorter time to the first bowel movement, with a reduced OR (OR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.98) compared to OH. Regarding complications, SH had lower incontinence rates (OR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.26-0.88), though a higher recurrence rate was noted in the SH group, especially at 12-18 months post-surgery. The risk of bias was generally low in most studies, with only a few showing moderate concerns. SH offers significant short-term benefits over OH, including reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, and fewer complications. However, the higher recurrence rates in SH suggest that clinicians should carefully consider long-term outcomes when choosing the optimal surgical approach for hemorrhoidectomy.
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.