Comparative Analysis of Open and Closed Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Chronic Anal Fissure: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation

Mehmet Zafer Sabuncuoglu; Isa Sozen; İsmail Zihni; Girayhan Celik; Bilal Turan; Serdar Acar; İsa Karaca; Demet Gunduz

doi:10.12659/MSM.944127

29 April 2024 : Clinical Research

Comparative Analysis of Open and Closed Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Chronic Anal Fissure: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation

Mehmet Zafer Sabuncuoglu^1ABCDEF, Isa Sozen^1AE, İsmail Zihni^1ABF*, Girayhan Celik^1EF, Bilal Turan^2CD, Serdar Acar^3D, İsa Karaca^3BD, Demet Gunduz^4ADE

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.944127

Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e944127

Authors information Article notes Copyright and License information

Introduction Material and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

Related articles Order reprints Share article Share by email

View HTML version

Table 1 Comparison of follow-up time, age, and complications according to open and closed lateral internal sphincterotomy surgery groups of patients.

	Open LIP	Closed LIP	p
Follow-up time (mean ±SD)	19.73±13.36	35.05±13.63	<0.001^*
Age (mean±SD)	40.98±12.20	44.64±13.78	0.080
Complication (n, %)			0.462
Pain	8 (50.0)	5 (21.7)
Stream	2 (12.5)	2 (8.7)
Fecal incontinence	0 (0,0)	4 (17.4)
Gas incontinence	0 (0,0)	1 (4.3)
Constipation	0 (0,0)	1 (4.3)
Bleeding	3 (18.8)	4 (17.4)
Itching	1 (6.3)	1 (4.3)
Relapse	2 (12.5)	3 (13.0)
Tenesmus	0 (0.0)	2 (8.7)
^* LIP – lateral internal sphincterotomy.

Back to the Article

Comparative Analysis of Open and Closed Sphincterotomy for the Treatment of Chronic Anal Fissure: Safety and Efficacy Evaluation

Your Privacy