ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2025
A comparative study on efficacy and safety of modified partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 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.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe long-term outcomes and efficacy of partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (PSH) compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy (CH) are not fully understood. This study aimed to introduce a modified PSH (mPSH) and compare its clinical efficacy and safety with those of CH.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted. This study was performed at a single hospital and involved 6 colorectal surgeons. In total, 110 patients were enrolled between July 2019 and September 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mPSH group (n=55) or CH group (n=55). The primary outcome was to compare postoperative average pain and postoperative peak pain using visual analog scale score between the 2 groups.
resultsThe required duration of analgesia was shorter in the mPSH group than in the CH group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.096). However, the laxative requirement duration (P<0.010), return to work (P<0.010), satisfaction score (P<0.010), and Vaizey score (P=0.014) were significantly better in the mPSH group. The average and peak postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the mPSH group during the 15 days after surgery (P<0.001). The overall complication rate in both groups was 9.1%, with no significant difference between the groups (P=0.867).
conclusionThe mPSH group demonstrated better improvement in symptoms, lower pain scores, and greater patient early satisfaction after surgery than the CH group. Therefore, this surgical technique appears to be a safe and effective alternative for CH.
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.