Top

Published in:

01-09-2012 | Original Article

Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: is still the gold standard treatment?

Authors: Marco Milone, Paola Maietta, Maddalena Leongito, Giuseppe Pesce, Giuseppe Salvatore, Francesco Milone

Published in: Updates in Surgery | Issue 3/2012

Abstract

Hemorrhoidectomy remains the most definitive procedure to treat symptomatic grades III and IV hemorrhoids. However, over the years, several modifications have been made to the original operation to improve the outcomes. A total of 693 consecutive patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids underwent Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Our results serve as a standard for comparison conventional hemorrhoidectomy (Ferguson’s technique) with recent methods such as stapled hemorrhoidopexy and LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy. We have obtained a very low rate of post-operative pain after Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy (VAS pain score was 2.47 ± 1.1 after a day, 1.34 ± 0.7 after 7 days and 0.51 ± 0.1 after 2 weeks) as to for stapler and LigaSure procedure in the literature. Moreover, long-term results demonstrate high levels of patient satisfaction (the satisfaction was good in 624 patients after 2 weeks and in 658 patients after 1 year) with a low recurrence rates (7 patients had recurrence after 1 year and 21 patients after 2 years). We believe that Ferguson-closed hemorrhoidectomy could still be, at the moment, the gold standard to which other techniques are compared.

MacRae HM, McLeod RS (1995) Comparison of hemorrhoidal treatment modalities: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 38(7):687–694PubMedCrossRef

Wang JY, Lu CY, Tsai HL, Chen FM, Huang CJ, Huang YS, Huang TJ, Hsieh JS (2006) Randomized controlled trial of LigaSure with submucosal dissection versus Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed hemorrhoids. World J Surg 30(3):462–466PubMedCrossRef

Fareed M, El-Awady S, Abd-El monaem H, Aly A (2009) Randomized trial comparing LigaSure to closed Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Tech Coloproctol 13(3):243–246PubMedCrossRef

Corman ML (2005) Hemorrhoids. In: Corman ML (ed) Colon and rectal surgery, W.W. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, pp 177–235

Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M, Leong AF (1997) Randomized controlled trial of open and closed hemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 84:1729–3170PubMedCrossRef

Ho YH, Buettner PG (2007) Open compared with closed hemorrhoidectomy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 11:135–143PubMedCrossRef

Guenin MO, Rosenthal R, Kern B, Peterli R, von Flüe M, Ackermann C (2005) Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: long-term results and patient satisfaction after Ferguson’s hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 48(8):1523–1527PubMedCrossRef

Chen JS, You JF (2010) Current status of surgical treatment for hemorrhoids-systematic review and meta-analysis. Chang Gung Med J 33(5):488–500PubMed

Jayaraman S, Colquhoun PH, Malthaner RA (2006) Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18(4):CD005393

10.

Shanmugam V, Thaha MA, Rabindranath KS, Campbell KL, Steele RJ, Loudon MA (2005) Systematic review of randomized trials comparing rubber band ligation with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 92(12):1481–1487PubMedCrossRef

11.

Arroyo A,_Perez F, Miranda E, Serrano P, Candela F, Lacueva J, Hern_ndez H, Calpena R (2004) Open versus closed day-case haemorrhoidectomy: is there any difference? Results of a prospective randomised study. Int J Colorectal Dis 19:370–373

12.

Konsten J, Baeten CGMI (2000) Hemorrhoidectomy vs. Lord’s method: 17-year follow-up of a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 43:503–506PubMedCrossRef

13.

Arbman G, Krrok H, Haapaniemi S (2000) Closed versus open hemorrhoidectomy. Is there any difference? Dis Colon Rectum 43:31–34PubMedCrossRef

14.

Tan EK, Cornish J, Darzi AW, Papagrigoriadis S, Tekkis PP (2007) Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes of randomized controlled trials of LigaSure vs conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Arch Surg 142(12):1209–1218 (discussion 1218)

15.

Longo A (1998) Treatment of hemorrhoids disease by reduction in mucosal and haemorrhoidal products with a circular stapling device: new procedure. In: proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Rome, Italy

16.

Kennedy JS, Stranahan PL, Taylor KD, Chandler JG (1998) High-burst-strength, feedback-controlled bipolar vessel sealing. Surg Endosc 12(6):876–878PubMedCrossRef

17.

Nienhuijs S, de Hingh I (2009) Conventional versus LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy for patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 21(1):CD006761

18.

Ho KS, Ho YH (2006) Prospective randomized trial comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy versus closed Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy. Tech Coloproctol 10(3):193–197PubMedCrossRef

19.

Ganio E, Altomare DF, Gabrielli F, Milito G, Canuti S (2001) Prospective randomized multicentre trial comparing stapled with open haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 88:669–674PubMedCrossRef

20.

Mehigan BJ, Monson JR, Hartley JE (2000) Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan–Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomized controlled trial. Lancet 355:782–785PubMedCrossRef

21.

Roswell M, Bello M, Hemingway DM (2000) Circumferential mucosectomy (stapled haemorrhoidectomy) versus conventional haemorrhoidectomy: randomized controlled trial. Lancet 355:779–781CrossRef

22.

Shalaby R, Desoky A (2001) Randomized clinical trial of stapled versus Milligan–Morgan haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 88:1049–1053PubMedCrossRef

23.

Ng KH, Eu KW, Ooi BS, Heah SM, Tang CL, Seow-Choen F (2003) Stapled haemorrhoidectomy for prolapsed piles performed with concurrent perianal conditions. Tech Coloproctol 7:214–215PubMedCrossRef

24.

Ooi BS, Ho Y-H, Tang CL, Eu KW, Seow-Choen F (2002) Results of stapling and conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Tech Coloproctol 6:59–60PubMedCrossRef

25.

Hetzer FH, Demartines N, Handschin AE, Clavien PA (2002) Stapled vs excision hemorrhoidectomy: long-term results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 137(3):337–340PubMedCrossRef

26.

Burch J, Epstein D, Sari AB, Weatherly H, Jayne D, Fox D, Woolacott N (2009) Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 11(3):233–243 (discussion 243)

27.

Lacerda-Filho A, Silva RG (2005) Stapled hemorrhoidectomy: present status. Arq Gastroenterol 42(3):191–194PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mehigan BJ, Monson JR, Hartley JE (2000) Stapling procedure for haemorrhoids versus Milligan–Morgan haemorrhoidectomy: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 355(9206):782–785PubMedCrossRef

29.

Sutherland LM, Burchard AK, Matsuda K, Sweeney JL, Bokey EL, Childs PA, Roberts AK, Waxman BP, Maddern GJ (2002) A systematic review of stapled hemorrhoidectomy. Arch Surg 137(12):1395–1406 (discussion 1407)

30.

Molloy RG, Kingsmore D (2000) Life threatening pelvic sepsis after stapled haemorrhoidectomy. Lancet 355(9206):810PubMedCrossRef

31.

Basdanis G, Harlaftis N, Michalopoulos A, Papadopoulos VN, Apostolis S (2000) Surgical treatment of haemorrhoids with the use of the circular stapler and open haemorrhoidectomy: a comparative study. Tech Coloproctol 4:137–140CrossRef

32.

Lan P, Wu X, Zhou X, Wang J, Zhang L (2006) The safety and efficacy of stapled hemorrhoidectomy in the treatment of hemorrhoids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of ten randomized control trials. Int J Colorectal Dis 21(2):172–178PubMedCrossRef

33.

Nisar PJ, Acheson AG, Neal KR, Scholefield JH (2004) Stapled hemorrhoidopexy compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy: systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1837–1845PubMedCrossRef

34.

Muzi MG, Milito G, Nigro C, Cadeddu F, Andreoli F, Amabile D, Farinon AM (2007) Randomized clinical trial of LigaSure and conventional diathermy haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 94(8):937–942PubMedCrossRef

35.

Lawes DA, Palazzo FF, Francis DL, Clifton MA (2004) One year follow up of a randomized trial comparing LigaSure with open haemorrhoidectomy. Colorectal Dis 6(4):233–235PubMedCrossRef

36.

Ho YH, Cheong WK, Tsang C, Ho J, Eu KW, Tang CL, Seow-Choen F (2000) Stapled hemorrhoidectomy—cost and effectiveness. Randomized, controlled trial including incontinence scoring, anorectal manometry, and endoanal ultrasound assessments at up to three months. Dis Colon Rectum 43(12):1666–1675PubMedCrossRef

Title: Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: is still the gold standard treatment?
Authors: Marco Milone
Paola Maietta
Maddalena Leongito
Giuseppe Pesce
Giuseppe Salvatore
Francesco Milone
Publication date: 01-09-2012
Publisher: Springer Milan
Published in: Updates in Surgery / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Electronic ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-012-0155-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy: is still the gold standard treatment?

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Idiopathic ileo-colonic varices in a young patient

Autologous dermal grafts for rectus sheath reconstruction and application in closure of ventral myofascial defects

Erratum to: Efficacy of two different surgical techniques combined in the treatment of rectocele

Forty-nine colorectal cancer liver metastases in one-stage hepatectomy with cumulative Pringle time lasting 348 min

Protection of the intrahepatic biliary tree by contemporaneous portal and arterial reperfusion: results of a prospective randomized pilot study

Learning curve for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a high-volume hospital