Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

A Comparison of Different Surgical Treatments for Complex Anal Fistula: A Systematic Review

Zahra A., Malla J., Selvaraj R., Dhanoa RK., Venugopal S., Shoukrie SI.

Meta-analysis on Autoimmune Research, published in Cureus (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Cureus (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36176822
PMCID
PMC9512314
DOI
10.7759/cureus.28289
Citations
15

Abstract (original English)

Fistula-in-ano is a common proctological condition that primarily affects younger people and leads to chronic morbidity. An anal fistula is divided into simple and complex fistulas. A complex fistula is a challenging problem due to higher recurrence rates and incontinence associated with surgery. Many new methods have been developed for the closure of complex fistula-in-ano, but there is no single best method. The aim of this study is to identify a superior surgical technique for treating complex/high cryptoglandular perianal fistulas (HCPFs). A literature search was done using PubMed and Google Scholar for the period of 2012-2021. Articles that contain surgical treatment for complex anal fistula in the English language published in the last 10 years were included. The types of studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, systematic reviews, cohort studies, and traditional reviews. Articles excluded were those done more than 10 years ago, in other languages, and containing simple fistula management only. Nine studies were included in the review; a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that no single method is effective. The ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure seems to be a promising and effective technique as it has a low rate of fecal incontinence as compared to other methods. Biological techniques give variable

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research