Trial reportScientific reports2022
Cutting seton versus decompression and drainage seton in the treatment of high complex anal fistula: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Directional Snare vs Cutting Seton for High Anal Fistula Treatment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Trial
- Healing and functional outcomes after treatment of high anal fistula with a modified anal fistula plug: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cost-minimization analysis of postoperative antibiotic use in high horseshoe anal fistula: evidence from a randomized controlled trial in China.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Ultrasound assessment of low type intersphincteric perianal fistulas in Yemen.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Combined Parks Seton placement and transanal sphincterotomy improves outcome and reduces recurrence in high-position complex anal fistula.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Optimum management for complex anal fistula: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Modified anal sphincter suspension improves anal function in patients with anal fistula.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Article
- Treatment of pediatric fistula-in-ano-Sphincter-sparing non-cutting seton placement as the future treatment of choice?Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy between decompression and drainage seton (DADS) and cutting seton (CS) in the treatment of high complex anal fistula. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to DADS or CS group. The primary outcome was the rate of wound healing. Second outcomes included time taken to return to work, postoperative pain, the severity of fecal incontinence and other complications. A total of 120 patients with a mean age of 39 years were included. There was no significant difference in the rate of complete wound healing at 1 year. The mean time taken to return to work was 5 ± 2 days in DADS group, shorter than CS group (10 ± 3, p < 0.001). Mean vaizey incontinence score and the post-operation pain in DADS group was significantly lower than CS group. No significant difference was found between two groups in the incidence of complications. DADS is as effective as Cutting seton for the treatment of high complex anal fistula but is associated with less postoperative pain and better sphincter function preserving.
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.