Trial reportBJS open2025
Preoperative enema for anal surgery: randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHaemorrhoidal surgery and anal fistula surgery are two of the most common procedures in proctology. Currently, there is no definitive consensus on the need to administer a preoperative enema. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and benefits of preoperative enemas in anal surgical procedures.
methodsPatients diagnosed with grade III or IV haemorrhoids and anal fistulas at the Taipei Medical University Shuang-Ho Hospital, Taiwan, between 2022 and 2023, were enrolled in a randomized clinical study comparing the use of preoperative enema (intervention) versus no preoperative enema (control). The primary outcome measures included postoperative visual analogue scale scores and analgesic usage from postoperative day 0 to day 7. Secondary outcomes of interest were postoperative complications, including surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding and urinary retention. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of procedure for the same outcomes.
resultsA total of 266 patients were enrolled in this study, with 133 allocated to the enema group and 133 to the control group. No significant differences were observed in postoperative visual analogue scale scores, analgesic consumption and postoperative complications between the two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients undergoing stapled haemorrhoidopexy and anal fistula surgery also showed no significant differences in postoperative visual analogue scale scores, analgesic consumption, and postoperative complications between the enema and control groups. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy, the mean(s.d.) visual analogue scale score was significantly higher in the control group than in the enema group on day 2 (5.69(2.14) versus 3.77(2.45), P = 0.021), day 3 (5.85(2.61) versus 3.92(2.73), P = 0.042) and day 4 (5.23(2.55) versus 3.42(2.18), P = 0.027).
conclusionPreoperative enema in anal surgery did not yield additional benefits or reduce complications when compared with patients who did not undergo enema before anal surgery. Based on the study findings, its use can be omitted in anal surgery, especially for patients undergoing stapled haemorrhoidopexy and anal fistula surgery.
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.