Botulinum toxin injection versus lateral internal sphincterotomy in the treatment of chronic anal fissure: a non-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Although lateral internal sphincterotomy is the gold-standard treatment for chronic anal fissure, intrasphincteric injection of botulinum toxin seems to be a reliable new option. The aim of this non-randomized study is to compare the effect of lateral internal sphincterotomy and botulinum toxin injection treatments on the outcome and reduction of anal sphincter pressures in patients with chronic anal fissure. METHODS: Patients with chronic anal fissure were treated with either botulinum toxin injection or lateral internal sphincterotomy by their own choice. Maximal resting pressure and maximal squeeze pressure measurements were performed before and 2 weeks after treatments by anal manometry. Patients were followed for fissure relapse during 14 months. RESULTS: Twenty-one consecutive outpatients with posterior chronic anal fissure were enrolled. Eleven patients underwent surgery and ten patients received botulinum toxin injection treatment. Before the treatment, anal pressures were found to be similar in both groups. After the treatment, the maximal resting pressures were reduced from 104 ± 22 mmHg to 86 ± 15 mmHg in the surgery group (p < 0.05) and from 101 ± 23 mmHg to 83 ± 24 mmHg in the botulinum toxin group (p < 0.05). The mean maximal squeeze pressures were reduced from 70 ± 27 mmHg to 61 ± 32 mmHg (p > 0.05) in the surgery group, and from 117 ± 62 mmHg to 76 ± 34 (p < 0.01) in the botulinum toxin group. The fissures were healed in 70 percent of patients in the botulinum group and 82 percent in the surgery group (p > 0.05). There were no relapses during the 14 months of follow up. CONCLUSION: Lateral internal sphincterotomy and botulinum toxin injection treatments both seem to be equally effective in the treatment of chronic anal fissure

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries