Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2023
Mucosal vs. cutaneous advancement flaps for the treatment of chronic anal fissures: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Chronic anal fissure-Cremes or surgery?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Enhanced Approach to Treating Chronic Anal Fissures: Fissurectomy with Vertical Non-full-thickness Midline Sphincterotomy and Mucosal Advancement Flap.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare two surgical treatment methods for chronic anal fissures (CAF), mucosal advancement flap anoplasty (MAFA) and cutaneous advancement flap anoplasty (CAFA).
methodsA randomized, blinded clinical trial was conducted on patients with CAF refractory to medical treatment referred to a tertiary-level hospital between January 2021 and December 2022. The patients were assigned to two groups by block randomization and were compared in terms of outcome, pain reduction, and complications.
resultsThere were 30 patients (male to female ratio 2:3, median age 42 years [range 25-59 years]). Both techniques reduced anal pain significantly (p = 0.001); however, there were no significant differences between MAFA and CAFA groups in recurrence, duration of healing, postoperative pain, and postoperative bleeding. No patient suffered from fecal incontinence (Wexner score = 0) or flap necrosis postoperatively. Only two patients in the MAFA group (1 and 3 months after surgery) and one patient in the CAFA group (2 months after surgery) had recurrence (total recurrence rate = 10%, healing rate = 90%). All of the patients were satisfied with their surgical results.
conclusionMucosal and cutaneous anal advancement flap techniques are effective and comparable surgical procedures for the treatment of chronic anal fissures with minimal complications, fast healing process, and minimal postoperative pain and complications. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: IRCT20120129008861N4 ( www.irct.ir ).
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.