ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Long-term follow-up study of loose combined cutting seton surgery for patients with high anal fistula.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond traditional setons: multicenter outcomes of a hybrid approach for high transsphincteric fistulas.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the RIFER procedure in treating high intersphincteric anal fistulas.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation surgical strategies in perianal fistulas treatment: Efficacy draining seton compared to other surgical approaches; a case-control study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of high anal fistula (HAF) is still difficult for clinical surgeons. Our previous study demonstrated the short-term benefit of loose combined cutting seton (LCCS) for patients with HAF. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of LCCS for treating HAF patients.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled consecutive HAF patients who received LCCS therapy in our hospital between March 2014 and July 2017. After enrollment, all patients were followed up by clinical review. The patients' clinical information and most recent follow-up results were collected. Pain was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS), and the severity of fecal incontinence was assessed by the Wexner Continence Grading Scale. We also assessed the patients' quality of life (QOL) using a the MOS item short from health survey (SF-36) questionnaire. HAF healing was considered the primary outcome, while the fistula recurrence rate, severity of fecal incontinence, and QOL were the secondary outcomes.
resultsIn total, 22 patients (18 male, four female) were enrolled in the final analysis. The mean duration of follow-up was 3.65 years (interquartile range: 3.55-4.22; range, 3.50-5.43). All patients were cured and there was no recurrence during the follow-up period. Eight patients reported a Wexner score of 1, while the remaining patients reported a score of 0 at the final follow-up. Furthermore, one patient had a VAS score of 1, while the remaining patients had a VAS score of 0, which indicated almost no postoperative pain. The QOL of all patients improved significantly.
conclusionsLCCS is an effective method to treat HAF patients. Large, multicenter randomized controlled trials are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.