Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Comparative Analysis of Directional Snare vs Cutting Seton for High Anal Fistula Treatment.
Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The cutting seton (CS) method uses a suture knot placed in the track of an anal fistula around the anal sphincter, which is tied using tension. This study aimed to compare outcomes in 60 patients with high anal fistula treated with a disposable directional snare or CS method. MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty patients with high anal fistula were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups, with 30 patients in each group. One group was treated by directional CS with a disposable fistula snare (DFCS), and the other group underwent CS. The 2 groups were compared in terms of clinical efficacy, operation time, rubber band fall-off time, wound healing time, visual analogue scale (VAS), anal function, recurrence rate, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS In the CS group, wound healing and operation time were longer than in the DFCS group (29.5±9.2 vs 37.2±10.7; 25.5±4.6 vs 29.9±5.1, P<0.05). In the 7 days after surgery, the VAS score of the DFCS group was markedly lower than that of the CS group (3.4±0.2 vs 4.9±0.1, P<0.05). Three months after surgery, Wexner score, anal resting pressure, and anal maximal contraction pressure in the DFCS group were remarkably improved, compared with in the CS group (P<0.05), and patients in the DFCS group were more satisfied (8.83±0.79 vs 5.51±0.37, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS The findings from this study showed that disposable directional snare can not only ensure the curative effect, but can also maintain the fine anal function more exactly, facilitate the thread tightening process, and reduce patient pain.
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.