Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare closed (Ferguson) hemorrhoidectomy to open (Milligan-Morgan) hemorrhoidectomy regarding postoperative conditions, complications, and long-term results. METHOD: This was a randomized study of 77 patients with second-degree or third-degree hemorrhoids suitable for hemorrhoidectomy. In 39 patients the Milligan-Morgan procedure was used, and in 38 patients the Ferguson procedure was used. Details of operations, postoperative complications, and length of postoperative stay were recorded. Pain was assessed from a visual analog scale and by registration of postoperative analgesic medication. Follow-up was done at three weeks, six weeks, and by visit or telephone interview after at least a year. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two methods regarding complications, pain, or postoperative stay. There were four reoperations for bleeding, all after Milligan-Morgan operations. At follow-up after three weeks 86 percent of the Ferguson patients had completely healed wounds, and none had signs of infection. Of the Milligan-Morgan patients, only 18 percent had completely healed wounds, and symptoms of delayed wound healing were significantly more frequent. One patient had a superficial wound infection. After one year more than 10 percent in each group had recurrent hemorrhoids with symptoms. CONCLUSION: Both methods are fairly efficient treatment for hemorrhoids, without serious draw-backs. The closed method has no advantage in postoperative pain reduction, but wounds heal faster, and the risk of wound dehiscence seems exaggerated.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Milligan ET, Morgan CN, Jones LE, Officer R. Surgical anatomy of the anal canal, and the operative treatment of haemorrhoids. Lancet 1937;2:1119–24.
Ferguson JA, Heaton JR. Closed hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1959;2:176–9.
Wolf JS, Munoz JJ, Rosin JD. Survey of hemorrhoidectomy practices: open versus closed techniques. Dis Colon Rectum 1979;22:536–8.
Khubchandani IT, Trimpi HD, Sheets JA. Closed hemorrhoidectomy with local anesthesia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1972;135:955–7.
Trudel JL. L'hémorrhoidectomie fermée. Ann Chir 1994;48:561–4.
Turell R. Hemorrhoidectomy, with special reference to open versus closed technics. Surg Clin North Am 1952;32:677–86.
Watts JM, Bennett RC, Duthie HL, Goligher JC. Healing and pain after haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 1964;51:808–17.
Gemsenjäger E. Hämorrhoidenexzision mit primärer wundnaht. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1989;119:259–61.
Ho Y-H, Seow-Choen F, Tan M, Leong AF. Randomized controlled trial of open and closed haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 1997;84:1729–30.
Andrews BT, Layer GT, Jackson BT, Nicholls RJ. Randomized trial comparing diathermy hemorrhoidectomy with the scissor dissection Milligan-Morgan operation. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:580–3.
Seow-Choen F, Ho Y-H, Ang H-G, Goh H-S. Prospective, randomized trial comparing pain and clinical function after conventional scissors excision/ligationvs. diathermy excision without ligation for symptomatic prolapsed hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1165–9.
Mortensen PE, Olsen J, Pedersen IK, Christiansen J. A randomized study on hemorrhoidectomy combined with anal dilatation. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:755–7.
Mathai V, Ong BC, Ho Y-H. Randomized controlled trial of lateral internal sphincterotomy with haemorrhoidectomy. Br J Surg 1996;83:380–2.
Asfar SK, Juma TH, Ala-Edeen T. Hemorrhoidectomy and sphincterotomy: a prospective study comparing the effectiveness of anal stretch and sphincterotomy in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:181–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Arbman, G., Krook, H. & Haapaniemi, S. Closedvs. open hemorrhoidectomy—Is there any difference?. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 31–34 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237240
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237240