SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Efficacy of FiLaC in different types of anal fistula. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fistula Tract Laser Closure (FiLaC) represents a minimally invasive technique for the management of fistula in ano. However, no data exists on the success rates of FiLaC for the different fistula types. This systematic analysis and meta-analysis were performed following the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature review was conducted for articles published in Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed using search terms 'Anal fistula OR fistula in ano OR anorectal fistula' (Mesh term), 'Laser', 'Park´s classification, 'complex fistula (Mesh term), and 'Clinical Trial' (Mesh term), 'healing rate', and 'closure rate' from inception until February 2025. Pooled results for 16 studies indicated higher healing rates for simple fistula (60.8%) compared to complex fistula (54.6%). Amongst complex fistulae, transsphincteric fistulae have the best odds of healing following FiLaC. The success rate of FiLaC for extrasphincteric and suprasphincteric fistulae is about 50%. Amongst all fistula types, although not statistically significant simple fistulae have a higher odds of healing following FiLaC in comparison to complex fistulae. Amongst complex fistulae, transsphincteric fistulae have the best success rates following FiLaC. Extrasphincteric and suprasphincteric fistulae have about 50% success rate following FiLaC.
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.