ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2025
Non-standardized surgery lateral internal sphincterotomy: Is there a consensus?
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 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
Objective: Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for chronic anal fissures. However, substantial variation exists in the surgical techniques applied. This study aims to evaluate practice differences among surgeons performing LIS and to assess whether a consensus has been established. Material and Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted to assess surgeons' technical approaches to LIS. Data were collected using a 24-question survey targeting surgeons from various countries. Results: A total of 207 surgeons (131 from Türkiye, 76 from other countries) responded. The majority were male (73.3%) and between 40 and 64 years of age (64.7%). Most participants (70%) had more than 10 years of surgical experience, and 55% were affiliated with academic centers. The open technique was preferred by 73.6% of respondents, while 21.4% opted for the closed method. Partial sphincterotomy was favored by 66%, followed by complete (21%) and tailored (12%) approaches. Substantial heterogeneity was noted in bowel preparation, patient positioning, incision type, and management of skin tags or hypertrophied papillae. Only 6% reported routine use of anorectal manometry. Variations were more prominent across countries than between demographic groups. The principal finding of the study is the lack of a standardized approach to LIS across international surgical communities. Conclusion: There is no standardized approach to LIS among surgeons. Surgical technique preferences vary significantly and appear to be influenced more by geographic practice location than by individual surgeon characteristics such as age, gender, or experience.
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.