Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Nov 27, 2012; 4(11): 256-261
Published online Nov 27, 2012. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i11.256
Published online Nov 27, 2012. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i11.256
Ref. | Study design | Patients (n) | Follow-up | Success rates n (%) | |||
AFP | MAF | AFP | MAF | AFP | MAF | ||
Christoforidis et al[19] | Retrospective | 37 | 43 | 14M | 56M | 12/37 (32.4) | 27/43 (62.8) |
Ortiz et al[18] | RCT | 15 | 16 | 1Y | 1Y | 3/15 (20.0) | 14/16 (87.5) |
Chung et al[20] | Retrospective | 27 | 96 | 24W | 12W | 19/27 (70.4) | 58/96 (60.4) |
Adamina et al[21] | Cohort study | 12 | 12 | 28.1W | 14.1W | 6/12 (50.0) | 4/12 (33.3) |
A ba-bai-ke-re et al[16] | RCT | 45 | 45 | 5.7M | 6.1M | 37/45 (82.2) | 29/45 (64.4) |
Van Koperen et al[17] | RCT | 31 | 29 | 11M | 11M | 9/31 (29.0) | 14/29 (48.3) |
- Citation: Leng Q, Jin HY. Anal fistula plug vs mucosa advancement flap in complex fistula-in-ano: A meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 4(11): 256-261
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v4/i11/256.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v4.i11.256