The hemorrhoidal disease affects approximately 4.4%-36% of the general population, and it has been estimated that \>50% of the population aged \>50 years experiences hemorrhoidal problems . Traditional hemorrhoidectomy, including Milligan-Morgan, Ferguson, and Whitehead procedures , are known to cause significant postoperative pain and discomfort and result in a poor quality of life after operation. Since the first introduction of the novel procedure hemorrhoidopexy by Longo in 1998, it has been considered as a safe procedure causing less postoperative pain and resulting in earlier recovery; furthermore, the patients are able to resume their normal daily life and work. The PPH stapler (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. Cincinnati, OH, USA) was also first introduced in 1998 as a device to perform this procedure. Subsequently, a new device, the DST stapler (Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA), was introduced in 2008 with some structural differences, including a detachable anvil, three anchor points over different levels, a larger case, and different agraffe sizes. However, the majority of current studies have been focusing on the use of PPH stapler for hemorrhoidopexy, and comparison with the DST stapler has been rarely discussed. One randomized controlled trial that compared between the PPH stapler and the DST stapler reported that the DST stapler demonstrated a better hemostatic ability and allowed the resection of a larger area of mucosal prolapse; however, that trial focused only on bleeding among the postoperative complications. Currently, only a limited number of studies have compared these two devices in terms of pain, complications, and anorectal stricture incidence rate. The present investigation is a matched cohort-control study aimed to compare the postoperative short-term outcomes among patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids who were treated with either the PPH or the DST stapler. The specimen surface area and the relationships with complications were also analyzed.
Age range
18 Years – 99 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Complication
Timeframe: 3 months