Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2018
Treatment of anal fissure: a survey of surgical practice in Australia and New Zealand.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Siddiqui J, Fowler G E, Zahid A, Brown K, Young C J
Аннотация
AIM: The aim was to determine whether or not the clinical management of anal fissure in Australia and New Zealand accords with published guidelines.
METHODS: A comprehensive survey based on common clinical scenarios was distributed to 206 colorectal surgeons in Australia and New Zealand.
RESULTS: The response rate was 44% (91 surgeons). For 19 topic areas, only seven (37%) reached consensus (defined as > 70% majority opinion). Of these, six (86%) agreed with guideline recommendations. Twelve (63%) topic areas demonstrated community equipoise (defined as less than or equal to 70% majority opinion), of which five (42%) agreed with guideline recommendations and seven (58%) disagreed with guidelines. Of the seven topics that disagreed with guidelines, three were based on moderate quality evidence (first line management of acute anal fissure in a young patient, fissure healing and faecal incontinence rates following anocutaneous flap) and four were based on low quality evidence (length of sphincter division during a lateral sphincterotomy in women, management of chronic low-pressure anal fissures postpartum, fissure healing rate following anoplasty with botulinum toxin or sphincterotomy and faecal incontinence rates following repeat sphincterotomy for recurrence). Consensus and/or agreement with guidelines were more prevalent in management when medical therapy failed.
CONCLUSION: While areas of consensus mostly agreed with guideline recommendations, there remain many areas of community equipoise which warrant further research.
METHODS: A comprehensive survey based on common clinical scenarios was distributed to 206 colorectal surgeons in Australia and New Zealand.
RESULTS: The response rate was 44% (91 surgeons). For 19 topic areas, only seven (37%) reached consensus (defined as > 70% majority opinion). Of these, six (86%) agreed with guideline recommendations. Twelve (63%) topic areas demonstrated community equipoise (defined as less than or equal to 70% majority opinion), of which five (42%) agreed with guideline recommendations and seven (58%) disagreed with guidelines. Of the seven topics that disagreed with guidelines, three were based on moderate quality evidence (first line management of acute anal fissure in a young patient, fissure healing and faecal incontinence rates following anocutaneous flap) and four were based on low quality evidence (length of sphincter division during a lateral sphincterotomy in women, management of chronic low-pressure anal fissures postpartum, fissure healing rate following anoplasty with botulinum toxin or sphincterotomy and faecal incontinence rates following repeat sphincterotomy for recurrence). Consensus and/or agreement with guidelines were more prevalent in management when medical therapy failed.
CONCLUSION: While areas of consensus mostly agreed with guideline recommendations, there remain many areas of community equipoise which warrant further research.