Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Evaluation surgical strategies in perianal fistulas treatment: Efficacy draining seton compared to other surgical approaches; a case-control study

Ghasemlouei A., Naseri A., Ashjaei A., Sadeghi S., Keshvari A.

Prospective Study with a reported sample of 36 on Autoimmune Research, published in Health Sci Rep (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Prospective Study
Journal
Health Sci Rep (2024)
Reported sample size
36
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38410496
PMCID
PMC10894753
DOI
10.1002/hsr2.1911
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

Background and aims Perianal fistula is a prevalent anorectal condition originating from an infectious crypt extending to the external opening. Multiple surgical methods exist for treating perianal fistulas; however, selecting the appropriate options is still controversial. Our study aims to evaluate seton replacement versus other surgical methods in treating perianal fistula. Methods This study recruited 72 patients presenting with perianal discharge and diagnosed with perianal fistula through intra-sphincteric, trans-sphincteric, and supra-sphincteric examinations at Imam Reza and Besat Hospitals from July 2022 up to March 2023. Regarding case-control design, patients were divided into two groups: the first group ( n = 36) underwent seton insertion, while the control group ( n = 36) received alternative surgical methods. Follow-up was conducted for 1 month post-discharge, with monthly visits for 6 months. Patients were evaluated for fistula tract healing, seton loosening, and daily secretion rate (based on infected pads) during each visit. Finally, the two groups were compared in terms of improvement rates. Results In the seton group, approximately 94.4% of patients showed improvement. However, the difference between the groups was insignificant ( p = 0.494). Seton replacement was performed in 52% of patients, with the majority requiring replacement twice (61%). Improvement r

What this study does not prove

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

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research