ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Management of chronic anal fissures: should fissurectomy be performed with botulinum toxin injection?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the superior success rate of lateral internal sphincterotomy for managing chronic anal fissure (CAF), there is a trend towards sphincter-preserving treatment due to the increased risk of incontinence. Botulinum toxin (BT) and fissurectomy are two sphincter-preserving options for CAF. We aim to assess if combining fissurectomy with botox treatment is superior to botulinum toxin alone in the management of CAF.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted across two Sydney hospitals over 7 years. All patients with a CAF managed with either BT and fissurectomy (group 1) or BT only (group 2) were included. Primary outcome was healing rate defined as resolution or significant improvement of perianal symptoms at initial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were persistence, recurrence, re-intervention and faecal incontinence rate. Follow-up questionnaire was conducted to compare long-term outcomes between the two groups.
resultsFifty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria (group 1, 37; group 2, 20). Mean BT dose and injection location between the groups were similar (p = 0.259 and p = 0.427). There was a 65% response rate to the follow-up questionnaire. Median follow-up was 34.3 months (range 0.4-93). There was no difference in healing (56.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.561), recurrence (37.8% vs. 30%, p = 0.383) or re-intervention rate (13.5% vs. 20%, p = 0.888). Long-term incontinence rate was significantly higher in patients group 2 (0% vs. 10%, p = 0.010), with two patients reporting persistent flatus incontinence. Median overall satisfaction score was 3/4 (range 1-4), in both groups (p = 0.469).
conclusionBotulinum toxin with or without fissurectomy is a safe sphincter-sparing treatment option for CAF. However, the addition of fissurectomy to BT does not improve healing rates and we therefore recommend BT injection alone as a second-line treatment of CAF in patients who fail topical treatment.
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.