The study is a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 2% lidocaine gel in reducing postoperative pain and analgesic consumption after haemorrhoidectomy. 222 patients undergoing Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy will be randomly assigned to receive either 2% lidocaine gel or a non-anaesthetic lubricant gel control. Pain scores using a visual analog scale (VAS) will be assessed at 12 and 24 hours, and 2, 3, and 7 days postoperatively. Analgesic consumption will also be measured.

Title: Efficacy of 2% Lidocaine Gel in Reducing Postoperative Pain and Analgesic Consumption Following Haemorrhoidectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial Objective: To assess the effect of 2% lidocaine gel on postoperative pain intensity and analgesic consumption following haemorrhoidectomy.

Study Design: This study is a single-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 2% lidocaine gel or a non-anaesthetic water-based lubricant gel (control) using a computer-generated randomization list. The randomization will be stratified by hemorrhoid grade (III or IV). The study medication will be prepared by the hospital pharmacy and provided in identical, pre-filled syringes to ensure blinding of participants and investigators.

Intervention: The intervention group will receive 5 mL of 2% lidocaine gel, while the control group will receive 5 mL of a non-anaesthetic water-based lubricant gel. The study medication will be applied to the perianal region three times per day for 7 days following surgery. Patients will be instructed on the proper application technique and will be provided with a diary to record the time and date of each application.

Outcome Assessment: Postoperative pain will be assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), with 0 representing no pain and 100 representing the worst imaginable pain. Pain scores will be recorded at 12 and 24 hours, and 2, 3, and 7 days after surgery. Patients will also record their analgesic consumption in a diary, including the type, dose, and frequency of analgesics used. Postoperative complications, such as bleeding, infection, or urinary retention, will be assessed by the treating surgeon at each follow-up visit.

Sample Size: A sample size of 222 patients (111 per group) was calculated based on a power of 80%, a significance level of 0.05, and an expected difference in mean VAS scores of 15 mm between the groups, with a standard deviation of 30 mm.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Age 18 years or older
• Diagnosed with Grade III or IV hemorrhoids
• Candidate for Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy

Exclusion Criteria:

• Not a candidate for Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy
• Recurrent hemorrhoidal disease
• Concurrent anal pathology diagnosed preoperatively, including:
• Anal fistula
• Anal fissure
• Anal polyp
• History of diabetes mellitus
• History of liver cirrhosis
• History of inflammatory bowel disease
• Documented neuropathy
• Coagulation disorders
• Currently on anticoagulants
• Documented allergy to any of the drugs included in the protocol

The study is a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 2% lidocaine gel in reducing postoperative pain and analgesic consumption after haemorrhoidectomy. 222 patients undergoing Ferguson haemorrhoidectomy were randomly assigned to receive either 2% lidocaine gel or a non-anaesthetic lubricant gel control. Pain scores using a visual analog scale (VAS) were assessed at 12 and 24 hours, and 2, 3, and 7 days postoperatively. Analgesic consumption was also measured.

1 year

This study employed a double-blind masking approach to minimize potential bias. Patients, surgeons, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. The randomization scheme was generated by a third party not involved in patient care, and sealed envelopes containing the allocation were opened only after the haemorrhoidectomy procedure was completed. The study gels were packaged identically to maintain blinding. Unblinding occurred only after data analysis was completed. This double-blind design ensured that knowledge of treatment allocation did not influence postoperative care, patient-reported pain scores, or the assessment of outcomes.