Cargando…
Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
INTRODUCTION: Identifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10450130/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37612106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065876 |
_version_ | 1785095128957845504 |
---|---|
author | Ahn, Hilalion (San) Hu, Richard Gilbert, Richard Zwiep, Terry Moloo, Husein Williams, Lara Raiche, Isabelle Boushey, Robin P Friedlich, Martin Musselman, Reilly P |
author_facet | Ahn, Hilalion (San) Hu, Richard Gilbert, Richard Zwiep, Terry Moloo, Husein Williams, Lara Raiche, Isabelle Boushey, Robin P Friedlich, Martin Musselman, Reilly P |
author_sort | Ahn, Hilalion (San) |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Identifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of the LIFT with an intersphincteric bioprosthetic mesh and has reported healing rates between 69% and 94%. Despite increased costs and potential complications associated with mesh, the evidence comparing healing rates between BioLIFT and LIFT is unknown. This study details the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of BioLIFT and LIFT to compare outcomes associated with each procedure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database will be searched from inception using a search strategy designed by an information specialist. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, consecutive series, cross-sectional studies and case series with more than five patients will be included. Both comparative and single group studies will be included. The eligible population will be adult patients undergoing BioLIFT or LIFT for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. The primary outcome will be primary healing rate. Secondary outcomes will capture secondary healing rate and complications. Abstract, full text and data extraction will be completed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions and the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Quality of evidence for outcomes will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random-effects inverse variance model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be explored in relation to complex fistula characteristics and patients who have undergone previous LIFT. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I(2) statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require research ethics board approval. This study will be completed in September 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international conferences and journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020127996. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10450130 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104501302023-08-26 Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis Ahn, Hilalion (San) Hu, Richard Gilbert, Richard Zwiep, Terry Moloo, Husein Williams, Lara Raiche, Isabelle Boushey, Robin P Friedlich, Martin Musselman, Reilly P BMJ Open Surgery INTRODUCTION: Identifying the optimal treatment for anal fistula has been challenging. Since first reported in 2007, the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has reported healing rates between 40% and 95% and is being increasingly adopted. The BioLIFT is an augmentation of the LIFT with an intersphincteric bioprosthetic mesh and has reported healing rates between 69% and 94%. Despite increased costs and potential complications associated with mesh, the evidence comparing healing rates between BioLIFT and LIFT is unknown. This study details the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of BioLIFT and LIFT to compare outcomes associated with each procedure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database will be searched from inception using a search strategy designed by an information specialist. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, consecutive series, cross-sectional studies and case series with more than five patients will be included. Both comparative and single group studies will be included. The eligible population will be adult patients undergoing BioLIFT or LIFT for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. The primary outcome will be primary healing rate. Secondary outcomes will capture secondary healing rate and complications. Abstract, full text and data extraction will be completed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions and the Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Quality of evidence for outcomes will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random-effects inverse variance model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be explored in relation to complex fistula characteristics and patients who have undergone previous LIFT. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I(2) statistic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require research ethics board approval. This study will be completed in September 2022. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international conferences and journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020127996. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10450130/ /pubmed/37612106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065876 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Surgery Ahn, Hilalion (San) Hu, Richard Gilbert, Richard Zwiep, Terry Moloo, Husein Williams, Lara Raiche, Isabelle Boushey, Robin P Friedlich, Martin Musselman, Reilly P Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of BioLIFT versus LIFT for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of biolift versus lift for the treatment of trans-sphincteric anal fistula: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Surgery |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10450130/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37612106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065876 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ahnhilalionsan comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hurichard comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gilbertrichard comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT zwiepterry comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT moloohusein comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT williamslara comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT raicheisabelle comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bousheyrobinp comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT friedlichmartin comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT musselmanreillyp comparisonofbioliftversusliftforthetreatmentoftranssphinctericanalfistulaaprotocolforsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |