ArticleAME case reports2025
Tailgut cyst, management of a rare perianal mass: a case report.
Article in AME case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A perianal mass has a wide range of possible diagnoses, including tailgut cysts. Tailgut cysts are congenital, and their development is slow. Because its most common placement is retro-rectal, it is extremely rare to find it on the perianal level only. It is possible to develop neoplastic or infectious problems. Consequently, proper support is required. Case Description: We present a case of perianal tailgut cyst in a 59-year-old man who sought help for painless anal discomfort. Nuclear magnetic resonance was used to conduct this assessment. The radiologist thought it was probably benign, but he was not able to find a precise diagnosis. Thus, the cyst was completely removed using a transanal way with the patient in a lithotomy position. Then, the anatomopathological examination had confirmed the diagnosis and the benignity of the cyst. The postoperative follow-up was uneventful. We had planned to see the patient for a clinical follow-up every six months, but he has refused so far. Conclusions: Tailgut cysts are uncommon in the perianal area but should be included in the differential diagnosis of perianal masses and should not be confused with an abscess or a haemorrhoid. The nuclear magnetic resonance appears to be the most appropriate radiological examination for the assessment of these masses. Excision is performed systematically to confirm the diagnosis and exclude a malignant condition thanks to the anatomopathological examination.
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.