Abstract
One hundred two patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids were randomized to receive treatment with either infrared photocoagulation (IRPC) or a bipolar diathermy probe (BD). There was no significant difference in complications, number of treatments required (IRPC 1.7 [0.9], BD 1.6 [0.8]). Third-degree hemorrhoids required more treatments than smaller piles. BD has some practical advantages over IRPC but results are similar.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schneider KW. Anaphylactic shock after haemorrhoidal sclerosing with quinine. Coloproctology 1980;4:255–6.
Russell TR, Donohue JH. Haemorrhoidal banding: a warning. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:291–3.
Leicester RJ, Nicholls RJ, Mann CV. Infrared coagulation in the treatment of haemorrhoids. Gut 1981;22:436.
Griffith CD, Morris DL, Wherry DC, Hardcastle JD. Out-patient treatment of haemorrhoids: a randomized trial comparing contact bipolar diathermy with rubber band ligation. Coloproctology 1987;6:322–34.
Fleischer D. Bicap therapy, cancer. Endosc Rev March/April 1988; 10–22.
O'Brien JD, Day SJ, Burnham WR. Controlled trial of small bipolar probe in bleeding peptic ulcers. Lancet 1986; 1:464–7.
Griffith CD, Morris DL, Ellis I, Wherry DC, Hardcastle JD. Out-patient treatment of haemorrhoids with bipolar diathermy coagulation. Br J Surg 1987;74:827.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Dennison, A., Whiston, R.J., Rooney, S. et al. A randomized comparison of infrared photocoagulation with bipolar diathermy for the outpatient treatment of hemorrhoids. Dis Colon Rectum 33, 32–34 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02053198
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02053198