Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39283323›Full record

ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Rectovaginal fistulas : Differentiated diagnostics and treatment].

Oliver Schwandner

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

1 author.

Oliver SchwandnerAbteilung für Proktologie, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder Regensburg, Prüfeninger Str. 86, 93049, Regensburg, Deutschland. oliver.schwandner@barmherzige-regensburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) represent less than 5% of anorectal fistulas. The classification of RVF is based on the localization (low vs. high) and the etiology. The most frequent causes of RVF are birth trauma, Crohn's disease, previous surgery and pelvic irradiation. In most cases a clinical diagnostic assessment is sufficient. Additionally, endosonography is a reliable tool to detect sphincter defects. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are reserved for special situations (e.g., RVF related to anastomotic leakage, after pelvic irradiation or associated with complex perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease). The surgical treatment is primarily oriented to the localization and etiology. Surgical techniques range from local procedures (e.g., endorectal advancement flap repair, transvaginal or transperineal closure) up to more invasive tissue interposition (e.g., bulbocavernosus muscle fat tissue flap or transposition of the gracilis muscle). In "high" RVF transabdominal approaches such as coloanal anastomosis, pull through procedures or omental interposition are indicated. All surgical procedures show high recurrence rates. Several operations are mostly necessary and a stoma creation is often required.

Indexed as

Rectovaginal FistulaCrohn DiseaseDiagnosis, DifferentialEndosonographyFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingSurgical FlapsTomography, X-Ray ComputedClassificationEtiologyRecurrenceStomaSurgical technique

Identifiers

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.