A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of topical sphincterotomy treatments for anal fissure.

BACKGROUND: Anal fissure is a common condition that can be treated medically or surgically. Chemical sphincterotomy is often used before surgical intervention. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of topical agents for chemical sphincterotomy on healing of anal fissures and side-effects. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) compliant systematic review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials which compared topical sphincterotomy agents with topical placebo agents or each other. Studies that included surgical treatments were excluded. Overall evidence was synthesized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met the study selection criteria. Seventeen studies show that glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) was significantly more likely to heal anal fissure than placebo (relative risk (RR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.35-2.84, I2 = 80%). Eleven studies showed a marginally significant difference between healing rates for diltiazem vs GTN, RR = 1.16, (1.01-1.33) I2 = 48%. There was no significant difference in healing between diltiazem and placebo, RR = 1.65, (0.64-4.23), I2 = 92%. GTN significantly reduced pain on the visual analog scale compared to the placebo group, MD-0.97 (-1.64 to -0.29) I2 = 92%. There was high certainty of evidence that GTN was significantly more likely to cause headache than placebo (RR = 2.73 (1.82-4.10) I2 = 58%) and diltiazem RR = 6.88 (2.19-21.63) I2 = 17%. CONCLUSION: There is low certainty evidence topical nitrates are an effective treatment for anal fissure healing and pain reduction compared to placebo. Despite widespread use of topical diltiazem, more evidence is required to establish the effectiveness of calcium channel blockers compared to placebo.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatments for anal fissure.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple treatments for anal fissures. These range from medical treatment to surgical procedures, such as sphincterotomy. The aim of this study was to compare the relative clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventional treatments for anal fissure. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were identified by means of a PRISMA-compliant systematic review using the Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing treatments for anal fissure. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using BUGSnet package in R. Outcomes of interest were healing (6-8-, 10-16-, and >16-week follow-up), symptom recurrence, pain (measured on a visual analog scale), and fecal or flatus incontinence. PROPSERO Registration: CRD42021229615. RESULTS: Sixty-nine randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Lateral sphincterotomy remains the treatment with the highest odds of healing compared to botulinum toxin and medical therapy at all follow-up time points. There was no significant difference in healing between botulinum toxin and medical therapy at any time point. Advancement flap showed similar effectiveness compared to lateral sphincterotomy. Medical treatment and botulinum toxin had the highest pain scores at follow-up. Sphincterotomy had the highest odds of fecal and flatus incontinence. CONCLUSION: Lateral sphincterotomy had the highest rates of healing and should be considered as the definitive treatment after failed initial therapy with botulinum toxin or medical treatment. Botulinum toxin was equally effective compared to medical treatment. Advancement flap shows similar effectiveness compared to lateral sphincterotomy, but more studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy.