Search

Since 2007, ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) for the management of anal fistula was all introduced with initial success and excitement. It remains controversial which surgical procedure is suitable for transsphincteric fistula, especially to complex anal fistula. This retrospective study was designed to evaluate the results in patients with recurrent anal fistula by LIFT. A retrospective study of 55 complex fistula patients who underwent LIFT procedure in a single medical center was analyzed. Patients and fistula characteristics, complications, and recurrences were reviewed. All 55 patients underwent the procedure with a median follow-up of 16 months. Median operative time was 44 (range 23–88) minutes. Of the 55 patients, 33 (60%) healed completely and did not require any further surgical treatment at end of follow-up. Twenty-two (40%) recurrences and six complications were observed. Compared with patients who had undergone more than two surgical procedures, LIFT was more suitable for patients who had undergone one to two surgical procedures, and significant difference was observed in number of operations before LIFT (p=0.002). Clinicians can consider the use of LIFT for the treatment of recurrent anal fistulas. A larger number of patients and prospective study are needed to be performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The aim of this analysis was to compare the advantages of the anal fistula plug ( AFP) with the mucosa advancement flap ( MAF) for complex anal fistulas. Methods Comparative studies of the efficacy of AFP and MAF were included. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion. After information collection, a meta-analysis was performed using data on overall healing rates, complications, incontinences and recurrences. The quality of postoperative life and cost were also included with the clinical results. Results Ten studies included 778 patients who were divided into AFP and MAF groups in this meta-analysis. During the follow-up period, no significant difference in healing rates, complications and recurrences were found ( P = 0.55, P = 0.78 and P = 0.23, respectively). The incontinence rate of AFP was lower than that of MAF ( P = 0.04). The postoperative quality of life of AFP patients was superior to that of MAF patients. The AFP patients had less persistent pain of a shorter duration and shortened healing time and hospital stay. The treatment cost of AFP patient was lower than that of MAF. Conclusion Compared to the MAF procedure, the AFP procedure has some advantages for complex anal fistulas, but more and large randomized clinical trials comparing the two procedures for fistula management need to be conducted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We evaluated the efficacy of fistulectomy compared to fistulotomy, and which procedure was the best procedure for patients with low anal fistula. Methods: The literature search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Google original studies and a manual search of reference on the topic of fistulectomy compared to fistulotomy for anal fistula that had a deadline for publication by June 2016. Randomized controlled trials studies were included in the review. The outcome variables were analyzed which including operative time, healing time, postoperative complications, recurrence and incontinence. Results: Six randomized controlled trials (fistulectomy = 280, fistulotomy = 285) were considered suitable for the meta-analysis, with a total of 565 patients. The result of meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in operative time [OR 4.74, 95 % CI −2.74, 12.23, p = 0.21] and healing time [OR −3.32, 95 % CI −19.86, 13.23, p = 0.69] between the fistulectomy and fistulotomy procedures. Three main postoperative complications were included, and the combined result indicated no statistically significant difference in overall complications [OR 1.39, 95 % CI 0.51, 3.78, p = 0.52] and subgroup complication. At the end of follow up, two kinds of surgical methods have the same low recurrence rate and faecal incontinence. The result revealed that there was no significant difference in rate of fistula recurrence between the fistulectomy and the fistulotomy [OR 1.39, 95 % CI 0.70, 2.73, p = 0.34]. Conclusion: The meta-analysis indicates that there is no conclusive evidence if fistulectomy or fistulotomy procedure is better in the treatment of low anal fistula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]