Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37460829›Full record

Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2023

Surgical treatment trends and outcomes for anal fistula: fistulotomy is still accurate and safe. Results from a nationwide observational study.

Ó Cano-Valderrama, T Fernández Miguel, A Correa Bonito, J Sancho Muriel, F J Medina Fernández, E Peña Ros, A M García Cabrera, C Cerdán-Santacruz, Grupo Joven de la Asociación Española de Coloproctología (GJ-AECP): Grupo de trabajo sobre fístula anal (Collaborative Group)

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ó Cano-Valderrama *Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Complejo Hospitalario de Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
T Fernández Miguel *Hospital Universitario Galdakao-Usansolo, Bizkaia, Spain.
A Correa BonitoHospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain. alba.bonito90@gmail.com.
J Sancho MurielHospital Universitario Y Politécnico de La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
F J Medina FernándezHospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain.
E Peña RosHospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Murcia, Spain.
A M García CabreraHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain.
C Cerdán-SantacruzHospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.
Grupo Joven de la Asociación Española de Coloproctología (GJ-AECP): Grupo de trabajo sobre fístula anal (Collaborative Group)
Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía · ESHospital Universitario de La Princesa · ESHospital de Galdakao · ESHospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe · ESHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío · ESUniversity Hospital Complex Of Vigo · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the present study was to analyse current surgical treatment preferences for anal fistula (AF) and its subtypes and nationwide results in terms of success and complications.

methodsA retrospective multicentre observational cohort study was conducted. The study period was 1 year (2019), with a follow-up period of at least 1 year. A descriptive analysis of patient characteristics and trends regarding technical options was performed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to analyse factors associated with healing and faecal incontinence (FI).

resultsFifty-one hospitals were involved, providing data on 1628 patients with AF. At a median follow-up of 18.3 (9.9-28.3) months, 1231 (75.9%) patients achieved healing, while 390 (24.1%) did not; failure was catalogued as persistence in 279 (17.2.0%) patients and as recurrence in 111 (6.8%). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with healing were fistulotomy (OR 5.5; 95% CI 3.8-7.9; p < 0.001), simple fistula (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.5-2.8; p < 0.001), single tract (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.3-2.8; p < 0.001) and number of preparatory surgeries (none vs. 3; HR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.8; p = 0.006). Regarding de novo FI, in the multivariate analysis previous anal surgery (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.4, p = 0.037), age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.002) and being female (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5, p = 0.008) were statistically related.

conclusionsAnal fistulotomy is the most used procedure for AF, especially for simple AF, with a favourable overall balance between healing and continence impairment. Sphincter-sparing or minimally invasive sphincter-sparing techniques resulted in lower rates of healing. In spite of their intended sphincter-sparing design, a certain degree of FI was observed for several of these techniques.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresFecal IncontinenceRectal FistulaAnal CanalFemaleHumansMaleOrgan Sparing TreatmentsTreatment OutcomeAnal canalAnal fistulaFaecal incontinenceFollow-up studiesOrgan sparing treatments

Identifiers

PMID37460829
OpenAlexW4384627125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.