ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: Perianal fistula is a prevalent anorectal condition originating from an infectious crypt extending to the external opening. Multiple surgical methods exist for treating perianal fistulas; however, selecting the appropriate options is still controversial. Our study aims to evaluate seton replacement versus other surgical methods in treating perianal fistula. Methods: This study recruited 72 patients presenting with perianal discharge and diagnosed with perianal fistula through intra-sphincteric, trans-sphincteric, and supra-sphincteric examinations at Imam Reza and Besat Hospitals from July 2022 up to March 2023. Regarding case-control design, patients were divided into two groups: the first group (n = 36) underwent seton insertion, while the control group (n = 36) received alternative surgical methods. Follow-up was conducted for 1 month post-discharge, with monthly visits for 6 months. Patients were evaluated for fistula tract healing, seton loosening, and daily secretion rate (based on infected pads) during each visit. Finally, the two groups were compared in terms of improvement rates. Results: In the seton group, approximately 94.4% of patients showed improvement. However, the difference between the groups was insignificant (p = 0.494). Seton replacement was performed in 52% of patients, with the majority requiring replacement twice (61%). Improvement rates were highest among cases with two seton replacements, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.073). Following seton replacement, the most common treatment methods were endoanal flap and fistulotomy, with observed improvement in 10 cases for each procedure. Conclusion: This study highlights that draining seton remains a primary choice for intermediate treatment due to its satisfactory improvement rate and lower requirement for replacement, especially up to two times.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of mortality in Iran. A six-year, comprehensive, integrated community-based demonstration study entitled Isfahan Healthy Heart Program (IHHP) conducted in Iran, and it started in 2000. Evaluation and monitoring are integrated parts of this quasi-experimental trial, and consists of process, as well as short and long-term impact evaluations. This paper presents the design of the "process evaluation" for IHHP, and the results pertaining to some interventional strategies that were implemented in workplaces METHODS: The process evaluation addresses the internal validity of IHHP by ascertaining the degree to which the program was implemented as intended. The IHHP process evaluation is a triangulated study conducted for all interventions at their respective venues. All interventional activities are monitored to determine why and how some are successful and sustainable, to identify mechanisms as well as barriers and facilitators of implementation. RESULTS: The results suggest that factory workers and managers are satisfied with the interventions. In the current study, success was mainly shaped by the organizational readiness and timing of the implementation. Integrating most of activities of the project to the existing ongoing activities of public health officers in worksites is suggested to be the most effective means of implementation of the health promoting activities in workplaces. CONCLUSION: The results of our experience may help other developing countries to plan for similar interventions.
