Abstract
An anal fissure is a common condition that affects patients of all ages. Its clinical presentation is a sharp pain on defecation with or without blood. It is treated by conservative or surgical means. This study aims to assess the efficacy of a sitz bath as compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy in the treatment of anal fissures. The search strategy used keywords related to the topic of study. Three databases were used: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. A total of 551 articles were screened. A quality assessment check was done on the articles leaving 11 articles. Four aspects of sitz bath outcomes were evaluated in the articles. In terms of analgesia, articles showed conflicting evidence. However, the overall evidence supports the use of sitz baths for their analgesic properties. In terms of healing, most articles had similar recovery rates of around 80%. Much of the research supported the use of sitz baths as the primary treatment to heal acute fissures. When compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy, the recovery rates of lateral internal sphincterotomy are superior to those of conservative treatment, including sitz baths. However, studies showed incontinence as a side effect of lateral internal sphincterotomy, and no studies reported side effects from the sitz baths. To conclude, the results of the articles support the use of sitz baths to treat anal fissures. Sitz baths have been found to have analgesic properties, as well as a good healing time. But, compared to lateral internal sphincterotomy, there is a significant difference in the healing rate at the end stage of treatment, lateral internal sphincterotomy is found to be superior. With regards to the side effects, none have been reported from using a sitz bath.