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
Time point | Group 1 (n = 30) | Group 2 (n = 30) | P |
Preoperative | 0 (0.1-1.0) | 0 (0.0-1.1) | 0.303 |
POD 1 | 2 (1.8-3.5) | 3 (2.6-4.2) | 0.135 |
POD 2 | 2 (1.8-3.3) | 2.5 (1.9-3.3) | 0.690 |
POD 3 | 2 (1.6-2.3) | 2.5 (1.9-3.1) | 0.484 |
POD 4 | 2 (1.4-2.7) | 2 (1.6-3.0) | 0.602 |
POD 5 | 2 (1.3-3.0) | 2 (1.3-2.6) | 0.988 |
POD 6 | 2 (1.5-2.9) | 2 (1.5-2.9) | 0.976 |
POD 7 | 1 (1.1-2.4) | 2 (1.3-2.5) | 0.416 |
POW 3 | 0 (0.4-1.2) | 0 (0.3-1.1) | 0.665 |
POW 6 | 0 (0.1-0.9) | 0 (0.0-0.4) | 0.399 |
- 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