Optimum management for complex anal fistula: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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

Abstract (original English)

Background Complex anal fistula has a high recurrence rate and disturbing surgical complications, which are frustrating for patients and challenging for surgeons. Although single or combined management methods have produced positive outcomes, no trials have simultaneously compared these therapies. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the management method for complex anal fistula with the lowest failure and complication rates. Methods This network meta-analysis (NMA) was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023393349). Randomized controlled trials that analyzed complex anal fistula management were obtained from Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane using representative keywords. The primary outcome was the failure of anal fistulas to heal (including recurrences) after 6 to 12 months. The secondary outcome was fecal incontinence. All statistical analysis was conducted within the Bayesian framework using BUGSnet 1.1.0 in R Studio. A forest plot and league table were used to present the results. Results A total of 19 studies containing 15 interventions, 1844 subjects, and 104 pairwise comparisons were analyzed quantitatively. The lowest failure rates occurred with ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) + Plug (RR 0.2; 95 % CI 0.01-2.65), LIFT + platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (RR 0.22; 95 % CI 0.01-2.89), and FSR (RR 0.26

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.

Browse all related research

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