ArticleCureus2026
Comparing Outcomes of Conventional Hemorrhoidectomy With Hemorrhoidectomy Using the Harmonic Scalpel.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Hemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common benign anorectal disorders encountered in surgical practice. Although various surgical modalities are available for grade III and IV hemorrhoids, Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy remains the gold standard treatment. However, postoperative pain is a major complication associated with this procedure. Therefore, hemorrhoidectomy using the harmonic scalpel (HS) has gained attention because of its potential to reduce tissue injury and postoperative pain. Methods This prospective single-center observational study included 112 patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids who underwent hemorrhoidectomy using the conventional technique (n = 59) or the harmonic scalpel (n = 53) at a tertiary teaching hospital between December 2024 and May 2026. Approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (approval number: CSP-MED/24/OCT/110/327), and written informed consent was obtained from all the participants. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of hemorrhoidectomy using the harmonic scalpel with the conventional technique in terms of perioperative outcomes. The primary outcomes included intraoperative bleeding, operating time, and postoperative pain, whereas secondary outcomes included the duration of hospital stay and postoperative urinary retention. Statistical analysis was performed, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A significant reduction in operating time (<0.001), intraoperative blood loss (<0.001), postoperative pain (<0.001), postoperative urinary catheterization (0.018), and hospital stay (<0.001) was noted in the group undergoing hemorrhoidectomy using the harmonic scalpel compared with the conventional group. Conclusion Patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy using the harmonic scalpel demonstrated a significant reduction in intra- and postoperative complications compared with the conventional group, suggesting greater efficacy in the management of grade III and IV hemorrhoids.
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.