ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2024
Rectovaginal Fistulas Not Involving the Rectovaginal Septum Should Be Treated Like Anal Fistulas: A New Concept and Proposal for a Reclassification of Rectovaginal Fistulas.
Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many rectovaginal fistulas(RVF), especially low RVF, do not involve/penetrate the RV-septum, but due to lack of proper nomenclature, such fistulas are also managed like RVF (undertaking repair of RV-septum) and inadvertently lead to the formation of a high RVF (involving RV-septum) in many cases. Therefore, REctovaginal Fistulas, Not Involving the Rectovaginal Septum, should be Treated like Anal fistulas(RENISTA) to prevent any risk of injury to the RV septum. This concept(RENISTA) was tested in this study. Methods: RVFs not involving RV-septum were managed like anal fistulas, and the RV-septum was not cut/incised. MRI, objective incontinence scoring, and anal manometry were done preoperatively and postoperatively. High RVF (involving RV-septum) were excluded. Results: Twenty-seven patients with low RVF (not involving RV-septum) were operated like anal fistula[age:35.2±9.2 years, median follow-up-15 months (3-36 months)]. 19/27 were low fistula[<1/3 external anal sphincter(EAS) involved] and fistulotomy was performed, whereas 8/27 were high fistula (>1/3 EAS involved) and underwent a sphincter-sparing procedure. Three patients were excluded. The fistula healed well in 22/24 (91.7%) patients and did not heal in 2/24 (8.3%). The healing was confirmed on MRI, and there was no significant change in mean incontinence scores and anal pressures on tonometry. RV-septum injury did not occur in any patient. Conclusions: RVF not involving RV-septum were managed like anal fistulas with a high cure rate and no significant change in continence. RV-septum injury or formation of RVF with septum involvement did not occur in any patient. The RENISTA concept was validated in the present study. A new classification was developed to prevent any inadvertent injury to the RV-septum.
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.