Copyright
©2011 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Oct 27, 2011; 3(10): 147-152
Published online Oct 27, 2011. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v3.i10.147
Published online Oct 27, 2011. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v3.i10.147
Table 2 Outcomes of patients undergoing bipolar diathermy (group 1) or ultrasonic scalpe (group 2)
| Parameter | Group 1 (n = 30) | Group 2 (n = 30) | P |
| No. of hemorrhoids resected, median (range) | 3 (2-4) | 3 (2-4) | 0.548 |
| 2 | 8 | 9 | |
| 3 | 18 | 19 | |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | |
| Operating time (95% CI, min) | 16 (14.6-18.2) | 31 (28.1-35.3) | < 0.0001 |
| Blood loss (95% CI, mL) | 0.9 (0.8-3.7) | 4.6 (3.8-7.0) | 0.001 |
| Oral analgesics use (tablets) (95% CI, 24 h) | 1 (0.4-0.9) | 1 (0.9-1.3) | 0.006 |
| Hospital stay (95% CI, d) | 2 (2.1-2.7) | 2 (2.2-2.8) | 0.275 |
| First defecation (95% CI, postoperative day) | 1 (1.1-1.7) | 1 (1.2-1.8) | 0.883 |
| Satisfaction (95% CI, -3 to +3) | 3 (1.9-2.8) | 3 (1.9-2.7) | 0.931 |
- Citation: Tsunoda A, Sada H, Sugimoto T, Kano N, Kawana M, Sasaki T, Hashimoto H. Randomized controlled trial of bipolar diathermy vs ultrasonic scalpel for closed hemorrhoidectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 3(10): 147-152
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v3/i10/147.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v3.i10.147