LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy versus the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) are both relatively new treatments for managing symptomatic hemorrhoids. This review aimed to evaluate and compare their short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database for randomized controlled trials comparing the LigaSure procedure and PPH published in any language from 1998 to October 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies involving 397 participants were included in this review. Pooled analysis showed that the LigaSure procedure was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate [relative risk (RR) = 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06 to 0.72, P = .01] and significantly shorter operating time [mean difference (MD) = -6.39, 95% CI: -7.68 to -5.10, P < .001]. The analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative pain between the two techniques (MD = 0.55, 95% CI: -0.15 to 1.25, P = .12] or in time off work or away from normal activity [standard MD = 0.13, 95% CI: -1.80 to 2.06, P = .9]. The two techniques did not show significant differences in postoperative complications or other patient-related outcomes (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates that both LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and PPH are safe alternatives for the management of hemorrhoids. Available evidence suggests that the LigaSure technique is associated with shorter operating time and lower hemorrhoid recurrence rate, but these conclusions should be further confirmed in large, multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up.