Caiman® versus LigaSure® hemorrhoidectomy: Postoperative pain, early complications, long-term follow-up, and costs
Chiara Eberspacher, Pietro Mascagni, Domenico Di Nardo, Daniele Pironi, Stefano Pontone, Jacopo Martellucci, Gabriele Naldini, Domenico Mascagni
Abstract
Purpose: Recently, the use of radiofrequency for hemorrhoidectomy has minimized incidence of postoperative complications. Effectiveness of LigaSure® is demonstrated, but it is quite expensive. This study aims to compare LigaSure® with Caiman®, a cheaper instrument that uses radiofrequency for hemorrhoidectomy.
Methods: A total of 35 patients were enrolled in this study between January 2015 and December 2017: 35 (Group A: Caiman®) patients were matched with 35 control patients (Group B) from our historical cohort, treated with LigaSure®. They were checked at 1 week after operation, at 4 weeks, and then after 2, 6, and 12 months. We considered different factors: intraoperative (operative time, number of piles removed, necessity of stiches or ligation), immediate postoperative (pain, bleeding within 4 weeks, incontinence, soiling within 4 weeks, healing time of anal wounds, return to working activities), and with a long-term follow-up.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in analyzed intraoperative data: operative time (Group A 35 minutes vs Group B 33 minutes; P = .198) and stitches used. Postoperative data were comparable too, in particular pain (Group A 1 day Visual Analog Score = 6.25 vs Group B = 5.4, P = .178; Group A 1 week Visual Analog Score = 2.7 vs Group B = 1.14, P = .22) and bleeding (Group A = 2 vs Group B = 4; P = .2).
Conclusions: According our initial experience, Caiman® can be a safe and cheaper alternative to LigaSure® for hemorrhoidectomy.
Publication Caiman® 5 – More on SAGE journals website