Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Perianal Fistula; from Etiology to Treatment - A Review

Sohrabi M., Bahrami S., Mosalli M., Khaleghian M., Obaidinia M.

Narrative Review on Autoimmune Research, published in Middle East J Dig Dis (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • 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
Narrative Review
Journal
Middle East J Dig Dis (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39131109
PMCID
PMC11316198
DOI
10.34172/mejdd.2024.373
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Anal fistula has been a challenging clinical issue for years due to its complex pathogenesis. The risk of frequent recurrence and incontinence complicates long-term treatment. Recent scientific literature has reviewed new techniques used for anal fistula treatment in recent years, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each based on clinical outcomes. Although surgery is the main method used to treat anal fistula, there is no simple technique that can completely heal complex anal fistula. The surgical treatment should consider the healing outcome and the protection of anal function comprehensively. Several innovative techniques have emerged in recent years, such as combined techniques based on drainage seton and LIFT-plug, which appear to be relatively effective therapies. However, more multi-center prospective trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate their effectiveness. In some situations, medical treatment may also be considered.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research