ArticleBMC surgery2026
Does the location of the internal opening matter? A long-term retrospective study of the efficacy of FiLaC
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of fistula laser closure (FiLaC®) in the treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula.
methodsData from Parks I-II cryptoglandular anal fistula patients in Parks I-II who underwent FiLaC® in our department between September 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, perioperative data, and postoperative data were collected and statistically analyzed.
resultsA total of 52 patients were included in the study. The success rate at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years was 76.9% (40/52), 75% (39/52), and 71.2% (37/52), respectively. The differences between the internal orifice location subgroups were statistically significant (P = 0.013), with the anterior type demonstrating a lower success rate than the bilateral and posterior types. No statistically significant differences were observed between the subgroup of Parks classification and the treatment of internal orifices. All scores, including visual analogue scale pain score (VAS-PS), Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score (CCF-IS), and the quality of life in patients with anal fistula questionnaire score (QoLAF-QS), showed no obvious difference.
conclusionFiLaC® technique can significantly relieve postoperative pain, reduce the incidence of anal incontinence and improve the postoperative quality of life in long-term follow-up. Patients with bilateral and posterior anal fistula are more likely to benefit from this technique.
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.