ArticleCureus2023
A Comparison of Laser and Fistulotomy Techniques in the Treatment of Fistula-in-Ano.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Laser-Based Fistula Therapies with and without Adjunctive Measures in Anal Fistulas Management: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of complex anal fistula.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Review
- Modified anal sphincter suspension improves anal function in patients with anal fistula.American journal of translational research · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Anal fistulas are a common complication of perianal abscesses. The treatment of anal fistulas is challenging, with persistent and high recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of laser ablation compared to fistulotomy in the treatment of anal fistulas. Materials and methods The patients were examined for external and internal openings of the fistula, its number, length, type, relationship with the sphincters, and any previous history of abscess or proctological surgery. The surgical procedures, complications, incontinence, recurrence, and recovery time were evaluated and compared between the two groups. The laser ablation group received an intermittent laser application at a wavelength of 1470 nm and 10 watts for three seconds, while the fistulotomy group underwent cutting of the fistula tract with electrocautery while keeping a stylet in place. Results A total of 253 patients were included in this retrospective study, with 149 patients undergoing fistulotomy and 104 patients undergoing laser ablation. The patients were evaluated based on the type, number, and location of internal and external openings, and the length of the fistula tract according to the Parks classification. The mean follow-up period was 9.0±4.3 months. The results showed that the laser group had a shorter time to return to work and less postoperative pain compared to the fistulotomy group. However, the recurrence rate was higher in the laser group. The recurrence rate was also found to be higher in patients with low transsphincteric fistulas and in patients with diabetes mellitus. Conclusion Our study findings indicate that while laser ablation may be associated with less pain and quicker recovery time, it may also have a higher recurrence rate compared to fistulotomy. We believe that laser ablation is a valuable option for surgeons to consider early on in the treatment process, especially in cases where fistulotomy is not suitable.
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.