ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2022
Fistulectomy and incontinence: do we really need to worry?
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical management of type 2 diabetes mellitus complicated with anal fistula.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Risk factors for postoperative adverse outcomes in patients with high anal fistula undergoing modified TROPIS procedure combined with Parks' fistulotomy with seton: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Predictors of recurrence and long-term patient reported outcomes following surgical repair of anal fistula, a retrospective analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anal fistula is often considered to be a dilemma because of the need to maintain a fine balance between postoperative incontinence and recurrence. We tried to find whether apprehension of causing incontinence should stop us from performing fistulectomy. The aim of this study was to determine whether fistulectomy was associated with increased rate of fecal incontinence and recurrence, compared to other procedures used for the treatment of anal fistula. Methods: It was a prospective, single center, observational study. All patients with anal fistula operated at a tertiary care teaching institute over a period of two years were included in the study. Recurrence rates and fecal incontinence were compared between patients subjected to fistulectomy and other procedures for treatment of fistula in ano. Results: A total of 124 patients with anal fistula were included. 92.8% patients were ≤ 60 years of age with high male preponderance (89.5%). Perineal discharge was the commonest complaint (95.96%). Intersphincteric (47.58%) followed by transphincteric fistulas (45.16%) accounted for the majority of fistulas. Fistulectomy was the most common procedure, performed in 90 (72.58%) patients. Incontinence occurred in 8/90 (8.88%) from the fistulectomy group and 2/34 (5.9%) patients in other surgery group, p=0.726. Recurrence occurred in 8/90 (8.88%) from the fistulectomy group and 8/34 (23.5%) patients from other surgery group, p=0.038. Overall rates of incontinence and recurrence were 8.1% and 12.9% respectively. Conclusion: Fistulectomy, as compared to other procedures, results in less chances of recurrence without compromising continence.
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.