NCT04058223

Brief Summary

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.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
2

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for all trials

Timeline
Completed

Started Sep 2018

Shorter than P25 for all trials

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

September 5, 2018

Completed
6 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

February 28, 2019

Completed
1 month until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

April 5, 2019

Completed
4 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

August 14, 2019

Completed
1 day until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

August 15, 2019

Completed
Last Updated

August 19, 2019

Status Verified

August 1, 2019

Enrollment Period

6 months

First QC Date

August 14, 2019

Last Update Submit

August 15, 2019

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Complication

    Post-OP bleeding, urinary retention, anaorectal stricture, PPH syndrome

    3 months

Study Arms (1)

PPH/DST

Patients underwent hemorrhoidopexy by PPH or DST stapler.

Device: Hemorrhoidopexy

Interventions

stapled hemorrhoidopexy

PPH/DST

Eligibility Criteria

Age18 Years - 99 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsAdult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
Sampling MethodNon-Probability Sample
Study Population

Patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoid underwent stapled hemorrhoidopexy

You may qualify if:

  • Grade III and grade IV hemorrhoid

You may not qualify if:

  • Anal fistula, rectal polyo\\p

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Taipei Medical University Shuang-Ho Hospital

New Taipei City, 235, Taiwan

Location

Biospecimen

Retention: SAMPLES WITHOUT DNA

After the surgery, the ring of the excised anorectal mucosa was cut open and flattened on a surgical towel as shown in Figure 2. The presence of muscle in the specimen was confirmed grossly and photographed. The entire surface area of the mucosa, muscle and the muscle/mucosa ratio were measured using the ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).

MeSH Terms

Conditions

HemorrhageConstriction, Pathologic

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Pathologic ProcessesPathological Conditions, Signs and SymptomsPathological Conditions, Anatomical

Study Officials

  • Tung-Cheng Chang, MD, PHD

    Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

Study Type
observational
Observational Model
COHORT
Time Perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Chief of colorectal surgery

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

August 14, 2019

First Posted

August 15, 2019

Study Start

September 5, 2018

Primary Completion

February 28, 2019

Study Completion

April 5, 2019

Last Updated

August 19, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-08

Locations