ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Close lateral internal sphincterotomy versus open lateral internal sphincterotomy for chronic anal fissure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment on 'Outcome of lateral internal sphincterotomy for anal fissure in a retrospective cohort of patients'.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Non-standardized surgery lateral internal sphincterotomy: Is there a consensus?Turkish journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Temporal trends and treatment patterns in anal fissure management: insights from a multicenter study in Italy.Techniques in coloproctology · 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) has been the gold standard for treating chronic anal fissure (CAF) that persists despite other measures. The authors aim to evaluate the effects of the close method (CLIS) of performing LIS as compared to the open method (OLIS). Methods: Databases were searched for relevant studies and results were screened to identify eligible articles, and all concerned outcomes were pooled as odd ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% CI in the meta-analysis models using RevMan 5.4. Results: Pooled data from 16 trials with 1,711 patients with idiopathic CAF showed that the CLIS has significant lower risk of delayed fissure healing [OR: 0.28, 95% CI (0.10, 0.77), Conclusion: CLIS is a safer option than OLIS for treating anal fissure. The risk of delayed fissure healing, incontinence, post-op pain and overall complication was significantly lower. However, the risk of surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding and recurrence did not differ. Future research with more prolonged follow-up is necessary to document recurrence reliably.
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.