ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2026
Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnal fistula is a common anorectal disorder for which conventional surgical procedures often result in relatively high recurrence and complication rates. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT), a sphincter-preserving technique, has emerged as a potential alternative.
aimTo systematically evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of LIFT
methodsIn accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive systematic search of both Chinese and international databases to identify RCTs published during January 2014 to 2025. Studies were deemed eligible if they directly compared LIFT with conventional surgical approaches, such as seton placement, fistulotomy, and fistulectomy. The extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager; the methodological quality of the included trials was rigorously evaluated by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
resultsIn total, 107 RCTs involving 9401 participants met the inclusion criteria. LIFT yielded higher healing rates and significantly lower recurrence and complication rates than conventional surgery. Patients undergoing LIFT reported a lower postoperative pain, shorter wound-healing duration, and better preservation of the anal sphincter function. No significant difference was recorded in the operative time between the two groups.
conclusionThe LIFT procedure demonstrated clear advantages over conventional surgical methods in terms of clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative recovery, supporting the former's role as an effective and sphincter-preserving treatment for anal fistula. Nevertheless, most available trials are limited by short follow-up durations and heterogeneous outcome definitions, underscoring the need for undertaking large, multicenter RCTs employing standardized endpoints.
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.