Efficacy and Safety of Endorectal Advancement Flap for the Treatment of Anal Fistula: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Complex anal fistula poses a significant challenge for anorectal surgeons due to its high risks of recurrence and incontinence. A sphincter-preserving procedure named endorectal advancement flap (ERAF) is gradually being applied to clinical practice. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ERAF in managing anal fistula. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for relevant manuscripts published from 29 August 2003 to 29 August 2023. Among these studies, outcomes included healing rate, recurrence rate, incontinence rate, and complications. Furthermore, the quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The heterogeneity was determined using the chi-squared test and I2 statistic. A random effects model was applied if significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05 and I2 > 50%) was observed. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding studies with a high risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included in the present analysis, involving 1559 participants. The pooled healing rate and recurrence rate of ERAF were 65.5% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 57.6%-73.4%) and 19.6% (95% CI: 14.8%-24.4%), respectively. The pooled incontinence rate was 10.6% (95% CI: 6.0%-15.1%). According to the subgroup analysis, the healing rate, recurrence rate, and incontinence rate of ERAF for fistula associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were 53.9% (95% CI: 38.1%-69.7%), 32.6% (95% CI: 21.3%-43.8%), and 2.8% (95% CI: 0%-10.6%), respectively. For patients without IBD, the healing rate, recurrence rate, and incontinence rate of ERAF were 70.6% (95% CI: 63.9%-77.4%), 15.7% (95% CI: 9.9%-21.5%), and 16.5% (95% CI: 8.1%-24.9%), respectively. We observed that bleeding, local infection or abscess, flap dehiscence, and haematomas were the common complications, with incidences of 2.2% (95% CI: 0%-4.5%), 9.5% (95% CI: 4.7%-14.4%), 10.4% (95% CI: 0.0%-21.6%), and 12.4% (95% CI: 0%-27.6%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ERAF may be an optional treatment for anal fistula from the perspective of effectiveness and safety. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023451451.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".