2014Iranian Red Crescent Medical JournalOpen access

Comparison of Topical Nifedipine With Oral Nifedipine for Treatment of Anal Fissure: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Farzaneh Golfam, Parisa Golfam, Babak Golfam, Puyan Pahlevani

Open full text 21 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical sphincterotomy has gained popularity as a treatment for anal fissure. Calcium channel blockers in topical forms could also be appropriate with low adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare topical and oral nifedipine in the treatment of chronic anal fissure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at two centers of Shahed University. One hundred and thirty patients with chronic anal fissure aged 18 to 60 years managed in our clinics were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Sixty-five patients received topical nifedipine (TN) and the same number received oral nifedipine (ON). RESULTS: Ulcer healing occurred in 43 (73.33%) of topical nifedipine group compared to 29 (49.5%) patients in oral nifedipine, which was significantly different (P < 0.05). Side effects such as headache and flushing in oral nifedipine group were more prevalent than topical nifedipine, which was statistically different. Recurrence rates were the same after six months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although oral nifedipine can reduce symptom and signs of anal fissure, topical nifedipine has a superior role for anal fissure treatment with higher healing rate and lower side effects.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Medical sphincterotomy has gained popularity as a treatment for anal fissure. Calcium channel blockers in topical forms could also be appropriate with low adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare topical and oral nifedipine in the treatment of chronic anal fissure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at two centers of Shahed University. One hundred and thirty patients with chronic anal fissure aged 18 to 60 years managed in our clinics were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Sixty-five patients received topical nifedipine (TN) and the same number received oral nifedipine (ON). RESULTS: Ulcer healing occurred in 43 (73.33%) of topical nifedipine group compared to 29 (49.5%) patients in oral nifedipine, which was significantly different (P < 0.05). Side effects such as headache and flushing in oral nifedipine group were more prevalent than topical nifedipine, which was statistically different. Recurrence rates were the same after six months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although oral nifedipine can reduce symptom and signs of anal fissure, topical nifedipine has a superior role for anal fissure treatment with higher healing rate and lower side effects.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 21 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical sphincterotomy has gained popularity as a treatment for anal fissure. Calcium channel blockers in topical forms could also be appropriate with low adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare topical and oral nifedipine in the treatment of chronic anal fissure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at two centers of Shahed University. One hundred and thirty patients with chronic anal fissure aged 18 to 60 years managed in our clinics were included in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Sixty-five patients received topical nifedipine (TN) and the same number received oral nifedipine (ON). RESULTS: Ulcer healing occurred in 43 (73.33%) of topical nifedipine group compared to 29 (49.5%) patients in oral nifedipine, which was significantly different (P < 0.05). Side effects such as headache and flushing in oral nifedipine group were more prevalent than topical nifedipine, which was statistically different. Recurrence rates were the same after six months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although oral nifedipine can reduce symptom and signs of anal fissure, topical nifedipine has a superior role for anal fissure treatment with higher healing rate and lower side effects.

Key concepts: Nifedipine, Medicine, Anal fissure, Randomized controlled trial, Anesthesia, Adverse effect, Oral administration, Prospective cohort study

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Topical Nifedipine With Oral Nifedipine for Treatment of Anal Fissure: A Randomized Controlled Trial — Research Paper | ScholarLens