Comparison of warm sitz bath and electronic bidet with a lower-force water flow for postoperative management after hemorrhoidectomy (BIDLOW).

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Yoon-Hye Kwon, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Heung-Kwon Oh, Jae Bum Lee, Hyung-Joong Jung, Kee-Ho Song, Seung Chul Heo, Rumi Shin, Joongyub Lee, Kyu Joo Park
{"title":"Comparison of warm sitz bath and electronic bidet with a lower-force water flow for postoperative management after hemorrhoidectomy (BIDLOW).","authors":"Yoon-Hye Kwon, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Heung-Kwon Oh, Jae Bum Lee, Hyung-Joong Jung, Kee-Ho Song, Seung Chul Heo, Rumi Shin, Joongyub Lee, Kyu Joo Park","doi":"10.1186/s12893-024-02737-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Electronic bidets can be a substitute for sitz baths, but no study has examined the use of electronic bidets to manage anal problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized, controlled, single-blind, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed. Patients who underwent hemorrhoidectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) to use the electronic bidet or warm sitz baths for 7 days after hemorrhoidectomy. The primary endpoint was the difference in the anal pain VAS score for 7 days posthemorrhoidectomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients were assigned to the electronic bidet (51) or sitz bath (50) groups. Twenty-six patients dropped out after randomization, and the final analysis included 34 patients in the electronic bidet group and 41 in the sitz bath group. The VAS score for anal pain 7 days posthemorrhoidectomy did not differ between the electronic bidet and sitz bath groups (38.3 ± 21.9 vs. 42.0 ± 21.1, p = 0.453). The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the VAS score in the electronic bidet group (81.22) was greater than the margin of noninferiority (46.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The VAS scores after hemorrhoidectomy did not differ between the electronic bidet and sitz bath groups, but the noninferiority of the electronic bidet to sitz baths for anal pain 7 days posthemorrhoidectomy was not verified.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT02353156, date: 02/02/2015).</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02737-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Electronic bidets can be a substitute for sitz baths, but no study has examined the use of electronic bidets to manage anal problems.

Methods: A randomized, controlled, single-blind, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed. Patients who underwent hemorrhoidectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) to use the electronic bidet or warm sitz baths for 7 days after hemorrhoidectomy. The primary endpoint was the difference in the anal pain VAS score for 7 days posthemorrhoidectomy.

Results: Patients were assigned to the electronic bidet (51) or sitz bath (50) groups. Twenty-six patients dropped out after randomization, and the final analysis included 34 patients in the electronic bidet group and 41 in the sitz bath group. The VAS score for anal pain 7 days posthemorrhoidectomy did not differ between the electronic bidet and sitz bath groups (38.3 ± 21.9 vs. 42.0 ± 21.1, p = 0.453). The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the VAS score in the electronic bidet group (81.22) was greater than the margin of noninferiority (46.20).

Conclusion: The VAS scores after hemorrhoidectomy did not differ between the electronic bidet and sitz bath groups, but the noninferiority of the electronic bidet to sitz baths for anal pain 7 days posthemorrhoidectomy was not verified.

Trial registration: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT02353156, date: 02/02/2015).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信