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

IF 1.4 Q3 SURGERY Surgery open science Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sopen.2024.03.003
Warsinggih , Citra Aryanti , Muhammad Faruk
{"title":"Optimum management for complex anal fistula: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Warsinggih ,&nbsp;Citra Aryanti ,&nbsp;Muhammad Faruk","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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; 95 % CI 0.02–2.12) relative to drainage seton. LIFT combined with other management methods showed lower fecal incontinence rates than the other treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The combination of LIFT with plug or PRP resulted in lower failure and complication rates in the management of complex anal fistula compared to the other methods tested.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024000356/pdfft?md5=ef9fdbf80968171d5c5c7087d7758bad&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024000356-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024000356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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; 95 % CI 0.02–2.12) relative to drainage seton. LIFT combined with other management methods showed lower fecal incontinence rates than the other treatments.

Conclusion

The combination of LIFT with plug or PRP resulted in lower failure and complication rates in the management of complex anal fistula compared to the other methods tested.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
复杂性肛瘘的最佳治疗方法:随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析
背景复杂性肛瘘的复发率很高,手术并发症也令人不安,这让患者感到沮丧,也给外科医生带来了挑战。虽然单一或联合治疗方法取得了积极的效果,但还没有试验同时比较这些疗法。因此,本研究旨在确定失败率和并发症发生率最低的复杂性肛瘘治疗方法。方法本网络荟萃分析(NMA)在国际前瞻性系统综述注册中心(PROSPERO;CRD42023393349)注册。使用具有代表性的关键词从 Medline、Scopus 和 Cochrane 中获取了分析复杂肛瘘治疗的随机对照试验。主要结果是肛瘘在 6 至 12 个月后未能愈合(包括复发)。次要结果是大便失禁。所有统计分析均在贝叶斯框架内使用 R Studio 中的 BUGSnet 1.1.0 进行。结果 共对 19 项研究进行了定量分析,其中包括 15 种干预措施、1844 名受试者和 104 项配对比较。相对于引流套管,括约肌间瘘道结扎术(LIFT)+塞子(RR 0.2; 95 % CI 0.01-2.65)、LIFT+富血小板血浆(PRP)(RR 0.22; 95 % CI 0.01-2.89)和FSR(RR 0.26; 95 % CI 0.02-2.12)的失败率最低。结论在治疗复杂性肛瘘时,与其他测试方法相比,将 LIFT 与塞子或 PRP 结合使用可降低失败率和并发症发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Immersive collaborative virtual reality for case-based graduate student teaching in thoracic surgery: A piloting study Rapid liver graft implantation in canine: A preliminary study A nomogram for cancer-specific survival of lung adenocarcinoma patients: A SEER based analysis Investigation and self-assessment of liver transplantation training physicians at Shanghai Renji Hospital: A preliminary study Optimizing the role of scrub nurses during robotic surgery console time
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1