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

Journal of Coloproctology - Tập 38 - Trang 314-319 - 2018
Abdullah Alhaddad1,2, Ali Mouzannar2, Aqeel Ashraf2, Bader Marafi2, Ibtisam Albader2,3, Ali Alsaid2, Jasim Alabbad2,3, Mousa Khoursheed2,3
1Dar Alshifa Hospital, Hawally, Kuwait
2Mubarak Alkabeer Hospital, Jabriya, Kuwait
3Kuwait University, Faculty of Medicine, Safat, Kuwait

Tóm tắt

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.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Abcarian, 2011, Anorectal infection: abscess-fistula, Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 24, 14, 10.1055/s-0031-1272819 Sainio, 1984, Fistula-in-ano in a defined population. Incidence and epidemiological aspects, Ann Chir Gynaecol, 73, 219 Parks, 1976, A classification of fistula-in-ano, Br J Surg, 63, 1, 10.1002/bjs.1800630102 Halligan, 1998, Imaging fistula-in-ano, Clin Radiol, 53, 85, 10.1016/S0009-9260(98)80053-6 Seow-Choen, 1992, Anal fistula, Br J Surg, 79, 197, 10.1002/bjs.1800790304 Wang, 2012, Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract plus bioprosthetic anal fistula plug for fistula-in-ano, Dis Colon Rectum, 55 Hong, 2014, Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) to treat anal fistula: systematic review and meta-analysis, Tech Coloproctol, 18, 685, 10.1007/s10151-014-1183-3 Garg, 2010, The efficacy of anal fistula plug in fistula-in-ano: a systematic review, Colorectal Dis, 12, 965, 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01933.x Seow-En, 2016, An experience with video-assisted anal fistula treatment (VAAFT) with new insights into the treatment of anal fistulae, Tech Coloproctol, 20, 389, 10.1007/s10151-016-1450-6 Meinero, 2011, Video-assisted anal fistula treatment (VAAFT): a novel sphincter-saving procedure for treating complex anal fistulas, Tech Coloproctol, 15, 417, 10.1007/s10151-011-0769-2 Shanwani, 2010, Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT): a sphincter-saving technique for fistula-in-ano, Dis Colon Rectum, 53, 39, 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181c160c4 Alfred, 2008, Short-term outcomes of the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure for treatment of fistula-in-ano: a single institution experience in Singapore, Dis Colon Rectum, 51, 696 Heydari, 2013, Bioabsorbable synthetic plug in the treatment of anal fistulas, Dis Colon Rectum, 56, 774, 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182839824 Limura, 2015, Modern management of anal fistula, World Gastroenterol, 21, 12, 10.3748/wjg.v21.i1.12 Katz, 1985, A new synthetic monofilament absorbable suture made from polytrimethylene carbonate, Surg Gynecol Obstet, 161, 213 Ommer, 2012, Gore BioA fistula plug in the treatment of high anal fistulas--initial results from a German multicenter-study, Ger Med Sci, 10 Parks, 1976, A classification of fistula-in-ano, Br J Surg, 63, 1, 10.1002/bjs.1800630102 Narang, 2016, Delayed absorbable synthetic plug (GORE® BIO-A®) for the treatment of fistula-in-ano: a systematic review, Colorectal Dis, 18, 37, 10.1111/codi.13208 Herold, 2016, Results of the Gore Bio-A fistula plug implantation in the treatment of anal fistula: a multicentre study, Tech Coloproctol, 20, 585, 10.1007/s10151-016-1505-8 Nasseri, 2016, The anal fistula plug in Crohn's disease patients with fistula-in-ano: a systematic review, Colorectal Dis, 18, 351, 10.1111/codi.13268 Madbouly, 2014, Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract versus mucosal advancement flap in patients with high transsphincteric fistula-in-ano: a prospective randomized trial, Dis colon Rectum, 57, 1202, 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000194 Garg, 2010, The efficacy of anal fistula plug in fistula-in-ano: a systematic review, Colorectal Dis, 12, 965, 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01933.x Schwandner, 2009, Surgical treatment of complex anal fistulas with the anal fistula plug: a prospective, multicenter study, Dis Colon Rectum, 52, 1578, 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a8fbb7 Ellis, 2010, Long-term outcomes with the use of bioprosthetic plugs for the management of complex anal fistulas, Dis Colon Rectum, 53, 798, 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181d43b7d Wang, 2014, Value of three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography for anal fistula assessment, Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi, 17, 1183 Wallin, 2012, Does ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract raise the bar in fistula surgery?, Dis Colon Rectum, 55, 1173, 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318266edf3 Lehmann, 2013, Efficacy of LIFT for recurrent anal fistula, Colorectal Dis, 15, 592, 10.1111/codi.12104 van Onkelen, 2012, Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract in low transsphincteric fistula: a new technique to avoid fistulotomy, Colorectal Dis, 15, 587, 10.1111/codi.12030 Ellis, 2012, Outcomes with the use of bioprosthetic grafts to reinforce the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (BioLIFT procedure) for the management of complex anal fistulas, Dis Colon Rectum, 53, 1361, 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181ec4470 Yang, 2013, Is it time to pull the plug on the plug? Outcomes of the LIFT, BioLIFT and plug for complex anal fistulas, Dis Colon Rectum, 56 Han, 2013, Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract plus a bioprosthetic anal fistula plug (LIFT-Plug): a new technique for fistula-in-ano, Colorectal Dis, 15, 582, 10.1111/codi.12062
Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Coloproctology

Tập 38

314-319

Thông tin tác giả