Search

Abstract Background Trans-sphincteric fistula management is very challenging and everyday new techniques are introduced to reach the safest and the most effective technique. In this study two of the most effective techniques are compared based on their post-operative outcomes. Objective To compare the efficacy of high ligation of the inter-sphincteric fistula tract by lateral approach (modified LIFT) and Fistulotomy and primary sphincteroplasty (FIPS) in the management of high trans-sphincteric fistula regarding their post-operative outcomes in the form of post-operative pain, time of wound healing in weeks, wound infection, incontinence and recurrence within one year. Patients and methods : The current study is single-blind, prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial conducted from June 2020 to June 2022 in the colorectal surgical unit of Ain Shams University Hospitals, which included 80 patients presented with high trans-sphincteric perianal fistula 55 (68.75%) males and 25 (31.25%) including a one-year follow-up postoperative. Results There were 80 patients in our study 40 patients in each group. The mean age of group (I) is 46.65 with standard deviation 6.6. while, in group (II) the mean age is 45.85 with standard deviation 6.07 (p = 0.576). From the included 80 patients 55(68.7%) were males and 25 (31.25%) were females (p = 0.469). Regarding, postoperative wound infection occurred in 2(5%) Patients in group (I) and 7(17.5%) patients in group (II) (p = 0.154). There were no cases of incontinence in group I. However, there were 6(15%) cases of incontinence to gases only scored by Wexner score 3/20 in group II (p = 0.026) and its significant difference between the two techniques. Postoperative pain was assessed for one week duration by the visual analogue score (VAS) from 0 to 10 in which, zero is the least and 10 is the maximum. In group (I) 18(45%) patients scored their pain mild from 1 to 3, 20(50%) patients scored their pain moderate from 4 to 6 and 2(5%) patients scored severe pain from 7 to 9. While, in group (II) 14(35%) patients scored their pain mild from 1 to 3, 22(55%) patients their pain moderate from 4 to 6 and 4(10%) patients scored their pain severe from 7 to 9 (p = 0.275). Recurrence in one-year follow-up occurred in 13(32.5%) patients in group (I) about 7 patients had recurrence in the form of inter-sphincteric fistula and 6 patients in the form of trans-sphincteric fistula. While, in group II recurrence occurred in 1 (2.5%) patient in the form of subcutaneous fistula at the healing site (p = 0.001). Conclusion Fistulotomy and primary sphincteroplasty is an effective and preferred technique for the trans-sphincteric fistula repair with high statistically significant lower incidence of recurrence in one-year follow-up as compared to modified LIFT technique. Although, there is higher incidence regarding incontinence to gases only post-operative. This work recommends fistulotomy and primary sphincter reconstruction procedure in high trans-sphincteric perianal fistulas to be more popular, to be implemented as a corner stone procedure along various and classic operations for such cases as it’s easy, feasible.

Introduction: Exploratory laparotomy is still the standard therapy for patients who need surgical intervention for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO). However, the use of laparoscopy in the management of adhesive SBO is still controversial. We aimed to detect the short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic adhesiolysis for SBO. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with adhesive SBO who underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery from June 2019 to July 2022 at Ain Shams University Hospitals. Intraoperative and early post-operative outcomes were compared in the two groups. Results: A total of 89 patients with adhesive SBO were included in our study. Fifty-one cases underwent open adhesiolysis and 38 cases underwent laparoscopic adhesiolysis. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is associated with a remarkable decrease in the operative time (71 min vs. 107 min, P = 0.001) and blood loss (50 ml vs. 120 ml, P = 0.001) in comparison to open adhesiolysis. In addition to that, those who underwent adhesiolysis by laparoscopy had a short hospital stay (2.4 days vs. 3.8 days, P = 0.001), early recovery (time to pass flatus 1.3 days vs. 2.8 days) and less post-operative complications (surgical site infection [SSI] 2.6% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.001). Moreover, open adhesiolysis is associated with a higher rate of early post-operative mortality. In addition to that, the incidence of iatrogenic injury was higher in the open group. Conclusion: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis is a safe and feasible approach for the management of SBO and has better short-term outcomes, especially if done by skilled surgeons in advanced laparoscopic techniques.

Abstract Background and aim For those with a centrally located HCC, the two types of liver sectionectomy that can be performed are extended hepatectomy (EH) and central hepatectomy (CH). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between patients treated with CH and patients treated with EH for those with centrally located HCC. Method We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for eligible studies from inception to 1 April 2022 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done to compare the outcomes between the two groups. Results we included 9 studies with a total of 1674 patients in this study. The pooled results in this meta-analysis showed equal long-term overall survival, Disease-free survival, recurrence and mortality between the two groups (5-year OS, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.96–1.35, P = 0.12; I2 = 56%), (5-year DFS, RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.61–1.08, P = 0.15; I2 = 60%), (Recurrence, RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.94–1.15, P = 0.45; I2 = 27%), and (Mortality, RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.26–1.15, P = 0.11; I2 = 0%). In addition to that, no significant difference could be detected in the overall incidence of complications between the two groups (Complications, RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.76–1.16, P = 0.57; I2 = 0%). However, CH is associated with a remarkable increase in the rate of biliary fistula (Biliary fistula, RR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.07–3.40, P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). And Liver cell failure was higher in the case of EH (LCF, RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30–0.76, P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Regarding the operative details, CH is associated with longer operative time (Time of the operation, Mean difference = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.36, 1.27, P = 0.0004; I2 = 57%). Conclusion No significant difference in the short and long-term survival and recurrence between CH and MH for CL-HCC. However, CH is associated with greater future remnant liver volume that decreases the incidence of LCF and provides more opportunities for a repeat hepatectomy after tumour recurrence.

Background and Aim: In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal pancreatectomy (DP) has increased dramatically. Our aim was to investigate whether reinforced staplers decrease the incidence of clinically relevant PF after DP compared with staplers without reinforcement. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to 1 November 2021, and a systematic review and a meta-analysis were done to detect the outcomes after using reinforced staplers versus standard stapler for DP. Results: Seven studies with a total of 681 patients were included. The overall incidence of POPF and the incidence of Grade A POPF after DP are similar for the two groups (overall POPF, risk ratio [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71–1.01, P = 0.06; I2 = 38% and Grade A POPF, RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.78–1.69, P = 0.47; I2 = 49%). However, the incidence of clinically significant POPF (Grades B and C) is significantly lower in DP with reinforced staplers than DP with bare staplers (Grades B and C, RR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.29–0.71, P = 0.0005; I2 = 17%). Nevertheless, the time of the operation, the blood loss during surgical procedure, the hospital stay after the surgery and the thickness of the pancreas are similar for both techniques. Conclusion: Although staple line reinforcement after DP failed to prevent biochemical PF, it significantly reduced the rate of clinically relevant POPF in comparison to standard stapling.