Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The use of cutting seton (CS) for the management of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano has remained controversial because of reports of fecal incontinence, postoperative pain, and extended healing time. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of studies investigating the use...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Techniques in coloproctology 2024-12, Vol.28 (1), p.12, Article 12
Hauptverfasser: Khamar, J., Sachdeva, A., McKechnie, T., Lee, Y., Tessier, L., Hong, D., Eskicioglu, C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 12
container_title Techniques in coloproctology
container_volume 28
creator Khamar, J.
Sachdeva, A.
McKechnie, T.
Lee, Y.
Tessier, L.
Hong, D.
Eskicioglu, C.
description Background The use of cutting seton (CS) for the management of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano has remained controversial because of reports of fecal incontinence, postoperative pain, and extended healing time. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of studies investigating the use of CS for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing CS with alternative interventions were included, along with single-arm studies evaluating CS alone. The primary outcome was fistula-in-ano recurrence, and secondary outcomes included incontinence, healing time, proportion with complete healing, and postoperative pain. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effect estimates. Results After screening 661 citations, 29 studies were included. Overall, 1513 patients undergoing CS (18.8% female, mean age: 43.1 years) were included. Patients with CS had a 6% (95% CI: 3–12%) risk of recurrence and a 16% (95% CI: 5–38%) risk of incontinence at 6 months. CS patients had an average healing time of 14.6 weeks (95% CI: 10–19 weeks) with 73% (95% CI: 48–89%) of patients achieving complete healing at 6 months postoperatively. There was no difference in recurrence between CS and fistulotomy, advancement flap, two-stage seton fistulotomy, or draining seton. Conclusions Overall, this analysis shows that CS has comparable recurrence and incontinence rates to other modalities. However, this may be at the expense of more postoperative pain and extended healing time. Further comparative studies between CS and other modalities are warranted.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10151-023-02886-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2902954564</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2902954564</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-269e2c1a391edccc7bd08eb8d59ab55cd65f47d22dabbda72b6bb160ca5054923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhkVIyfcf6KEIculFjT4sy-6tLG0SCOTSQG5CH-NdL7a1keSWza-Pups20EMOwwzMM-8M8yL0kdEvjFJ1lRhlkhHKRYmmqcnzATphjDeEVvLxcFcLUguhjtFpSmtKmVKSHaFj0dC2NOUJWi3mnPtpiRPkMOEuRJxXgHMEk0eYMg4ddnG7yWE5mMnPg4m461MuBeknYqbwFRuctinDaHLvcIRfPfzGhcUjZFMIM2xTn87Rh84MCS5e8xl6-PH95-KG3N1f3y6-3REnlMyE1y1wx4xoGXjnnLKeNmAbL1tjpXS-ll2lPOfeWOuN4ra2ltXUGUll1XJxhj7vdTcxPM2Qsh775GAo10OYk-Yt5a2sZF0V9PI_dB3mWO7dUaxSknNaKL6nXAwpRej0JvajiVvNqP7jg977oIsPeueDfi5Dn16lZzuC_zfy9_EFEHsglda0hPi2-x3ZF36UlX4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2901475220</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Khamar, J. ; Sachdeva, A. ; McKechnie, T. ; Lee, Y. ; Tessier, L. ; Hong, D. ; Eskicioglu, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Khamar, J. ; Sachdeva, A. ; McKechnie, T. ; Lee, Y. ; Tessier, L. ; Hong, D. ; Eskicioglu, C.</creatorcontrib><description>Background The use of cutting seton (CS) for the management of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano has remained controversial because of reports of fecal incontinence, postoperative pain, and extended healing time. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of studies investigating the use of CS for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing CS with alternative interventions were included, along with single-arm studies evaluating CS alone. The primary outcome was fistula-in-ano recurrence, and secondary outcomes included incontinence, healing time, proportion with complete healing, and postoperative pain. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effect estimates. Results After screening 661 citations, 29 studies were included. Overall, 1513 patients undergoing CS (18.8% female, mean age: 43.1 years) were included. Patients with CS had a 6% (95% CI: 3–12%) risk of recurrence and a 16% (95% CI: 5–38%) risk of incontinence at 6 months. CS patients had an average healing time of 14.6 weeks (95% CI: 10–19 weeks) with 73% (95% CI: 48–89%) of patients achieving complete healing at 6 months postoperatively. There was no difference in recurrence between CS and fistulotomy, advancement flap, two-stage seton fistulotomy, or draining seton. Conclusions Overall, this analysis shows that CS has comparable recurrence and incontinence rates to other modalities. However, this may be at the expense of more postoperative pain and extended healing time. Further comparative studies between CS and other modalities are warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1123-6337</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1128-045X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1128-045X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02886-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38091125</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Abdominal Surgery ; Adult ; Colorectal Surgery ; Drainage ; Fecal incontinence ; Fecal Incontinence - complications ; Fecal Incontinence - surgery ; Female ; Fistula ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gastroenterology ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Pain, Postoperative - etiology ; Proctology ; Rectal Fistula - etiology ; Recurrence ; Review ; Surgery ; Surgical outcomes ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Techniques in coloproctology, 2024-12, Vol.28 (1), p.12, Article 12</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2023. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-269e2c1a391edccc7bd08eb8d59ab55cd65f47d22dabbda72b6bb160ca5054923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-269e2c1a391edccc7bd08eb8d59ab55cd65f47d22dabbda72b6bb160ca5054923</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3920-066X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10151-023-02886-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10151-023-02886-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38091125$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khamar, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sachdeva, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKechnie, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tessier, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eskicioglu, C.</creatorcontrib><title>Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Techniques in coloproctology</title><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><description>Background The use of cutting seton (CS) for the management of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano has remained controversial because of reports of fecal incontinence, postoperative pain, and extended healing time. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of studies investigating the use of CS for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing CS with alternative interventions were included, along with single-arm studies evaluating CS alone. The primary outcome was fistula-in-ano recurrence, and secondary outcomes included incontinence, healing time, proportion with complete healing, and postoperative pain. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effect estimates. Results After screening 661 citations, 29 studies were included. Overall, 1513 patients undergoing CS (18.8% female, mean age: 43.1 years) were included. Patients with CS had a 6% (95% CI: 3–12%) risk of recurrence and a 16% (95% CI: 5–38%) risk of incontinence at 6 months. CS patients had an average healing time of 14.6 weeks (95% CI: 10–19 weeks) with 73% (95% CI: 48–89%) of patients achieving complete healing at 6 months postoperatively. There was no difference in recurrence between CS and fistulotomy, advancement flap, two-stage seton fistulotomy, or draining seton. Conclusions Overall, this analysis shows that CS has comparable recurrence and incontinence rates to other modalities. However, this may be at the expense of more postoperative pain and extended healing time. Further comparative studies between CS and other modalities are warranted.</description><subject>Abdominal Surgery</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Colorectal Surgery</subject><subject>Drainage</subject><subject>Fecal incontinence</subject><subject>Fecal Incontinence - complications</subject><subject>Fecal Incontinence - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fistula</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Rectal Fistula - etiology</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1123-6337</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhkVIyfcf6KEIculFjT4sy-6tLG0SCOTSQG5CH-NdL7a1keSWza-Pups20EMOwwzMM-8M8yL0kdEvjFJ1lRhlkhHKRYmmqcnzATphjDeEVvLxcFcLUguhjtFpSmtKmVKSHaFj0dC2NOUJWi3mnPtpiRPkMOEuRJxXgHMEk0eYMg4ddnG7yWE5mMnPg4m461MuBeknYqbwFRuctinDaHLvcIRfPfzGhcUjZFMIM2xTn87Rh84MCS5e8xl6-PH95-KG3N1f3y6-3REnlMyE1y1wx4xoGXjnnLKeNmAbL1tjpXS-ll2lPOfeWOuN4ra2ltXUGUll1XJxhj7vdTcxPM2Qsh775GAo10OYk-Yt5a2sZF0V9PI_dB3mWO7dUaxSknNaKL6nXAwpRej0JvajiVvNqP7jg977oIsPeueDfi5Dn16lZzuC_zfy9_EFEHsglda0hPi2-x3ZF36UlX4</recordid><startdate>20241201</startdate><enddate>20241201</enddate><creator>Khamar, J.</creator><creator>Sachdeva, A.</creator><creator>McKechnie, T.</creator><creator>Lee, Y.</creator><creator>Tessier, L.</creator><creator>Hong, D.</creator><creator>Eskicioglu, C.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3920-066X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241201</creationdate><title>Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Khamar, J. ; Sachdeva, A. ; McKechnie, T. ; Lee, Y. ; Tessier, L. ; Hong, D. ; Eskicioglu, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-269e2c1a391edccc7bd08eb8d59ab55cd65f47d22dabbda72b6bb160ca5054923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Surgery</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Colorectal Surgery</topic><topic>Drainage</topic><topic>Fecal incontinence</topic><topic>Fecal Incontinence - complications</topic><topic>Fecal Incontinence - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fistula</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - etiology</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Rectal Fistula - etiology</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khamar, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sachdeva, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKechnie, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tessier, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hong, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eskicioglu, C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Techniques in coloproctology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khamar, J.</au><au>Sachdeva, A.</au><au>McKechnie, T.</au><au>Lee, Y.</au><au>Tessier, L.</au><au>Hong, D.</au><au>Eskicioglu, C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Techniques in coloproctology</jtitle><stitle>Tech Coloproctol</stitle><addtitle>Tech Coloproctol</addtitle><date>2024-12-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>12</spage><pages>12-</pages><artnum>12</artnum><issn>1123-6337</issn><issn>1128-045X</issn><eissn>1128-045X</eissn><abstract>Background The use of cutting seton (CS) for the management of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano has remained controversial because of reports of fecal incontinence, postoperative pain, and extended healing time. The aim of this review was to provide the first synthesis of studies investigating the use of CS for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched up to October 2022. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing CS with alternative interventions were included, along with single-arm studies evaluating CS alone. The primary outcome was fistula-in-ano recurrence, and secondary outcomes included incontinence, healing time, proportion with complete healing, and postoperative pain. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool effect estimates. Results After screening 661 citations, 29 studies were included. Overall, 1513 patients undergoing CS (18.8% female, mean age: 43.1 years) were included. Patients with CS had a 6% (95% CI: 3–12%) risk of recurrence and a 16% (95% CI: 5–38%) risk of incontinence at 6 months. CS patients had an average healing time of 14.6 weeks (95% CI: 10–19 weeks) with 73% (95% CI: 48–89%) of patients achieving complete healing at 6 months postoperatively. There was no difference in recurrence between CS and fistulotomy, advancement flap, two-stage seton fistulotomy, or draining seton. Conclusions Overall, this analysis shows that CS has comparable recurrence and incontinence rates to other modalities. However, this may be at the expense of more postoperative pain and extended healing time. Further comparative studies between CS and other modalities are warranted.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>38091125</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10151-023-02886-z</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3920-066X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1123-6337
ispartof Techniques in coloproctology, 2024-12, Vol.28 (1), p.12, Article 12
issn 1123-6337
1128-045X
1128-045X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2902954564
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Abdominal Surgery
Adult
Colorectal Surgery
Drainage
Fecal incontinence
Fecal Incontinence - complications
Fecal Incontinence - surgery
Female
Fistula
Follow-Up Studies
Gastroenterology
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Pain, Postoperative - etiology
Proctology
Rectal Fistula - etiology
Recurrence
Review
Surgery
Surgical outcomes
Treatment Outcome
title Cutting seton for the treatment of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T07%3A43%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cutting%20seton%20for%20the%20treatment%20of%20cryptoglandular%20fistula-in-ano:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Techniques%20in%20coloproctology&rft.au=Khamar,%20J.&rft.date=2024-12-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12&rft.pages=12-&rft.artnum=12&rft.issn=1123-6337&rft.eissn=1128-045X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10151-023-02886-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2902954564%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2901475220&rft_id=info:pmid/38091125&rfr_iscdi=true