Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Alhaddad,Abdullah
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Mouzannar,Ali, Ashraf,Aqeel, Marafi,Bader, Albader,Ibtisam, Alsaid,Ali, Alabbad,Jasim, Khoursheed,Mousa
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632018000400314
Resumo: ABSTRACT Background: The surgical treatment of anal fistula is complex due to the possibility of fecal incontinence. Fistulotomy and cutting Setons have the same incidence of fecal incontinence depending on the complexity of the fistula. Sphincter-preserving procedures such as anal fistula plug and ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract procedure may result in more recurrence requiring repeated operations. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of treating fistula in Ano utilizing two methods: Fistula plug (Gore Bio-A) and ligation of intersphincteric tract (LIFT). Methods: Fifty four patients (33 males; 21 female, median ages 42 [range 32-47] years) with high anal inter-transphenteric fistula were treated with LIFT and fistula plug procedures from September 2011 until August 2016 by a single surgeon and were retrospectively evaluated. All were followed for a median of 23.9 (range 4-54) months with clinical examination. Twenty one patients underwent fistula plug and 33 patients underwent LIFT procedure (4 patients of the LIFT group underwent LIFT and rectal mucosa advancement flap). The healing rate and complications were evaluated clinically and through telephone calls. Results: The mean operative time for the Plug was 25 ± 17 min and for the LIFT was 40 ± 20 min (p = 0.017) and the mean hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 and 1.9 ± 0.3 (p = 0.01) respectively. The early complications of the plug and LIFT procedures included; anal pain (33.3%, 66.6%, p = 0.13), perianal discharge (77.8%, 91%, p = 0.62), anal pruritus (38.9%, 50.0%, p = 0.71) and bleeding per rectum (16.7%, 33.3%, p = 0.39) respectively. The overall mean follow-up was 20.9 ± 16.8 months, p = 0.68. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (21.9 ± 7.5 months, 19.9 ± 16.1 months, p = 0.682). The healing rate was 76.2% (16/21 patients) in the fistula plug group and 81.1% (27/33 patients) in the LIFT group (p = 0.73). Patients who had LIFT procedure and a mucosal advancement flap had 100% healing rate (4 out of 4 patients). No incontinence of stool or feces and no fistula plug expulsion were seen in our patients. The healing time ranged from 1 to 6 months after surgery. There was no post-operative perianal abscess, cellulitis or pain. Conclusions: LIFT and anal plug are safe procedures for patients with primary and recurrent anal fistula. Both techniques showed excellent results in terms of healing and complication rate. None of our patients had incontinence after 5 years follow-up. The best success rate in our patients was seen after LIFT procedure with mucosal advancement flap. Larger and controlled randomized trials are needed for better assessment of treatment options.
id SBCP-1_911255a9b0e5f536135feed309a6869c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2237-93632018000400314
network_acronym_str SBCP-1
network_name_str Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistulaAnal fistulaLigation of intersphincteric fistula tractFistula plugABSTRACT Background: The surgical treatment of anal fistula is complex due to the possibility of fecal incontinence. Fistulotomy and cutting Setons have the same incidence of fecal incontinence depending on the complexity of the fistula. Sphincter-preserving procedures such as anal fistula plug and ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract procedure may result in more recurrence requiring repeated operations. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of treating fistula in Ano utilizing two methods: Fistula plug (Gore Bio-A) and ligation of intersphincteric tract (LIFT). Methods: Fifty four patients (33 males; 21 female, median ages 42 [range 32-47] years) with high anal inter-transphenteric fistula were treated with LIFT and fistula plug procedures from September 2011 until August 2016 by a single surgeon and were retrospectively evaluated. All were followed for a median of 23.9 (range 4-54) months with clinical examination. Twenty one patients underwent fistula plug and 33 patients underwent LIFT procedure (4 patients of the LIFT group underwent LIFT and rectal mucosa advancement flap). The healing rate and complications were evaluated clinically and through telephone calls. Results: The mean operative time for the Plug was 25 ± 17 min and for the LIFT was 40 ± 20 min (p = 0.017) and the mean hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 and 1.9 ± 0.3 (p = 0.01) respectively. The early complications of the plug and LIFT procedures included; anal pain (33.3%, 66.6%, p = 0.13), perianal discharge (77.8%, 91%, p = 0.62), anal pruritus (38.9%, 50.0%, p = 0.71) and bleeding per rectum (16.7%, 33.3%, p = 0.39) respectively. The overall mean follow-up was 20.9 ± 16.8 months, p = 0.68. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (21.9 ± 7.5 months, 19.9 ± 16.1 months, p = 0.682). The healing rate was 76.2% (16/21 patients) in the fistula plug group and 81.1% (27/33 patients) in the LIFT group (p = 0.73). Patients who had LIFT procedure and a mucosal advancement flap had 100% healing rate (4 out of 4 patients). No incontinence of stool or feces and no fistula plug expulsion were seen in our patients. The healing time ranged from 1 to 6 months after surgery. There was no post-operative perianal abscess, cellulitis or pain. Conclusions: LIFT and anal plug are safe procedures for patients with primary and recurrent anal fistula. Both techniques showed excellent results in terms of healing and complication rate. None of our patients had incontinence after 5 years follow-up. The best success rate in our patients was seen after LIFT procedure with mucosal advancement flap. Larger and controlled randomized trials are needed for better assessment of treatment options.Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia2018-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632018000400314Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro) v.38 n.4 2018reponame:Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)instacron:SBCP10.1016/j.jcol.2018.07.003info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAlhaddad,AbdullahMouzannar,AliAshraf,AqeelMarafi,BaderAlbader,IbtisamAlsaid,AliAlabbad,JasimKhoursheed,Mousaeng2018-11-23T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2237-93632018000400314Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=2237-9363&lng=pt&nrm=isohttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sbcp@sbcp.org.br2317-64232237-9363opendoar:2018-11-23T00:00Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
title Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
spellingShingle Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
Alhaddad,Abdullah
Anal fistula
Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract
Fistula plug
title_short Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
title_full Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
title_fullStr Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
title_full_unstemmed Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
title_sort Long-term outcomes of (Gore) fistula plug versus ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract for anal fistula
author Alhaddad,Abdullah
author_facet Alhaddad,Abdullah
Mouzannar,Ali
Ashraf,Aqeel
Marafi,Bader
Albader,Ibtisam
Alsaid,Ali
Alabbad,Jasim
Khoursheed,Mousa
author_role author
author2 Mouzannar,Ali
Ashraf,Aqeel
Marafi,Bader
Albader,Ibtisam
Alsaid,Ali
Alabbad,Jasim
Khoursheed,Mousa
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Alhaddad,Abdullah
Mouzannar,Ali
Ashraf,Aqeel
Marafi,Bader
Albader,Ibtisam
Alsaid,Ali
Alabbad,Jasim
Khoursheed,Mousa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anal fistula
Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract
Fistula plug
topic Anal fistula
Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract
Fistula plug
description ABSTRACT Background: The surgical treatment of anal fistula is complex due to the possibility of fecal incontinence. Fistulotomy and cutting Setons have the same incidence of fecal incontinence depending on the complexity of the fistula. Sphincter-preserving procedures such as anal fistula plug and ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract procedure may result in more recurrence requiring repeated operations. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the outcomes of treating fistula in Ano utilizing two methods: Fistula plug (Gore Bio-A) and ligation of intersphincteric tract (LIFT). Methods: Fifty four patients (33 males; 21 female, median ages 42 [range 32-47] years) with high anal inter-transphenteric fistula were treated with LIFT and fistula plug procedures from September 2011 until August 2016 by a single surgeon and were retrospectively evaluated. All were followed for a median of 23.9 (range 4-54) months with clinical examination. Twenty one patients underwent fistula plug and 33 patients underwent LIFT procedure (4 patients of the LIFT group underwent LIFT and rectal mucosa advancement flap). The healing rate and complications were evaluated clinically and through telephone calls. Results: The mean operative time for the Plug was 25 ± 17 min and for the LIFT was 40 ± 20 min (p = 0.017) and the mean hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 and 1.9 ± 0.3 (p = 0.01) respectively. The early complications of the plug and LIFT procedures included; anal pain (33.3%, 66.6%, p = 0.13), perianal discharge (77.8%, 91%, p = 0.62), anal pruritus (38.9%, 50.0%, p = 0.71) and bleeding per rectum (16.7%, 33.3%, p = 0.39) respectively. The overall mean follow-up was 20.9 ± 16.8 months, p = 0.68. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (21.9 ± 7.5 months, 19.9 ± 16.1 months, p = 0.682). The healing rate was 76.2% (16/21 patients) in the fistula plug group and 81.1% (27/33 patients) in the LIFT group (p = 0.73). Patients who had LIFT procedure and a mucosal advancement flap had 100% healing rate (4 out of 4 patients). No incontinence of stool or feces and no fistula plug expulsion were seen in our patients. The healing time ranged from 1 to 6 months after surgery. There was no post-operative perianal abscess, cellulitis or pain. Conclusions: LIFT and anal plug are safe procedures for patients with primary and recurrent anal fistula. Both techniques showed excellent results in terms of healing and complication rate. None of our patients had incontinence after 5 years follow-up. The best success rate in our patients was seen after LIFT procedure with mucosal advancement flap. Larger and controlled randomized trials are needed for better assessment of treatment options.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632018000400314
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632018000400314
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.jcol.2018.07.003
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro) v.38 n.4 2018
reponame:Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)
instacron:SBCP
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)
instacron_str SBCP
institution SBCP
reponame_str Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
collection Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia (SBCP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sbcp@sbcp.org.br
_version_ 1752126478349238272