Premium
Feasibility case‐controlled study of day‐case haemorrhoidectomy
Author(s) -
Lam Tzit Yuen David,
Lam Steve Ching Wa,
Kwok Samuel Po Yin
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
anz journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.426
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 1445-1433
DOI - 10.1046/j.1445-1433.2001.02235.x
Subject(s) - medicine , urinary retention , surgery , general surgery , anesthesia
Haemorrhoidectomy is traditionally an inpatient procedure. With many benefits, the day‐surgery arrangement is an attractive alternative. The feasibility of day‐surgery haemorrhoidectomy was explored and the hospital days were calculated in a case controlled design. Methods: A single surgeon’s experience of day‐surgery haemorrhoidectomy between 1 July 1999 and 31 March 2000 was compared with inpatient haemorrhoidectomy during the same period. The operations were performed at United Christian Hospital Department of Surgery, Hong Kong (a government‐funded public hospital). Statistical tests were applied where appropriate. Results: There were 30 day‐surgery and 15 inpatient haemorrhoidectomies. The groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, severity of haemorrhoids, method and duration of haemorrhoidectomy, blood loss, residual haemorrhoids, duration of follow up and unplanned readmission rate. Significantly more day‐patients received general than spinal anaesthesia. Twenty‐six of 30 (87%) patients were successfully discharged after day surgery. Two were admitted for transient fever (< 24 h), one for micturition syncope and one for acute urinary retention. There were four unplanned readmissions after day surgery: one for pain and three for secondary bleeding. All stopped spontaneously. All three unplanned readmissions after inpatient surgery were for secondary bleeding. All stopped spontaneously. Patient stay was significantly shorter for day surgery (1 ± 1 day) than for the inpatient arrangement (4 ± 1.6 days). Conclusion: Day‐surgery haemorrhoidectomy is feasible. The significantly shorter hospital stay implies savings in public medical expenses.