Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Systematic Review of Stapled Hemorrhoidectomy

Sutherland, L. M.·2002·Archives of Surgery

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Use of circular stapled hemorrhoidectomy will result in the same or improved safety and efficacy outcomes as those of the conventional methods for hemorrhoidectomy in patients with hemorrhoids. DATA SOURCES: Studies on stapled hemorrhoidectomy were identified using PREMEDLINE and MEDLINE (June 1966-June 2001), EMBASE (January 1980-June 2001), Current Contents (June 1993-June 2001), Ovid HEALTHSTAR (January 1975-June 2001), the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database (searched June 13, 2001), and The National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment database (searched June 14, 2001). The search terms were as follows: haemorrhoid* and (stapl* or convent*) or hemorrhoid* and (stapl* or convent*). The Cochrane Library (2001, issue 2) was searched using the search terms haemorrhoid* or hemorrhoid*. STUDY SELECTION: Articles detailing randomized controlled trials were included if they compared circular stapled with conventional hemorrhoidectomy and provided relevant safety and efficacy outcome information. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from all included studies were extracted using standardized data extraction tables that were developed a priori. In addition, the randomized controlled trials were examined with respect to the adequacy of allocation concealment, handling of those unavailable for follow-up, and any other aspect of the study design or execution that may have introduced bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted when the studies had comparable outcomes, inclusion criteria, and follow-up. There was reasonably clear evidence in favor of the stapled procedure for bleeding at 2 weeks (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.82) and length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.89 days; 95% confidence interval, -1.42 to -0.36). Other less robust results in favor of the stapled hemorrhoidectomy related to pain, bleeding, anal discharge, wound healing, tenderness to per rectal examination, incontinence scores, earlier return of bowel function, analgesic requirement, and resumption of normal activities. One trial showed that prolapse occurred at significantly higher rates in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group. However, the outcomes were poorly reported and generally showed statistically significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy may be at least as safe as conventional hemorrhoidal surgical techniques. However, the efficacy of the stapled procedure compared with the conventional techniques could not be determined. More rigorous studies with longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes need to be conducted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archsurg.137.12.1395

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 176

Metadata

Authors
Sutherland, L. M.
Venue
Archives of Surgery
Published
2002-12-01
Volume
137
Issue
12
Pages
1395
ISSN
0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018809610
Cited by
176
References
1
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Systematic Review of Stapled Hemorrhoidectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.137.12.1395
The paper
Sutherland, L. M. (2002). A Systematic Review of Stapled Hemorrhoidectomy. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.137.12.1395

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.