Optimal Management of the Transsphincteric Anal Fistula

Fig. 32.1
Parks classification (A) superficial fistula (B) intersphincteric fistula (C) transsphincteric fistula (D) suprasphinteric fistula (E) extrasphincteric fistula (From Simpson et al. [1])
In this chapter, the data regarding sphincter-saving approaches to complex transsphincteric fistulas is reviewed. We discuss the following techniques in our review:fistulotomy, seton placement, fibrin glue, plug, endorectaladvancement flap (ERAF) and ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract procedure (LIFT). Our recommendations are based on data presented in Table 32.1, comparing fistulotomy, plug, ERAF and LIFT. In addition, we comment on the experience at our institution and our personal approach to this problem (Table 32.2).
Table 32.1
Summary of evidence
Author (year)
Population
Procedure
N
Median follow-up
Success
Function
change post-op
Between groups
Gottgens [4] (2015)
Low transsphincteric
Fistulotomy
164
38.9 months (6–74.8)
134 (81.7 %)
 
Abramowitz [5] (2015)
Low transsphincteric
Fistulotomy
93
12 months
 
=
 
High transsphincteric
Seton + staged fistulotomy
59
Schwander [6] (2009)
Transsphincteric after seton
Plug
66
12 months
37 (62 %)
=
 
Stamos [7] (2015)
Complex transsphincteric
Plug
55
12 months
49 %
+
 
Perez [8] (2006)*
High transsphincteric & suprasphincteric
Fistulotomy
28
38 months (24–52)
26 (92.8 %)
=
=
ERAF
27
25 (92.5 %)
=
Ortiz [9] (2009)*
High transsphincteric
Plug
15
12 months
3 (20 %)
 
ERAF
16
14 (87.5 %)
Van Koperen [10] (2011)*
High transsphincteric
Plug
31
11 months (5–27)
9 (29 %)
=
=
ERAF
29
14 (48 %)
=
Hall [11] (2014)
Low tanssphincteric
LIFT
17
3 months
14 (82 %)
+
 
High transsphincteric
19
15 (79 %)
+
Sileri [12] (2014)
Complex fistulas
LIFT
26
20 months (16–24)
19 (73 %)
=
 
Han [13] (2015)*
Transsphincteric
LIFT
118
6 months
99 (83.9 %)
=
=
LIFT-Plug
117
110 (95 %)
=
Madbouly [14] (2014)*
High transsphincteric
ERAF
35
12 months
23 (65.7 %)
=
=
LIFT
35
26 (74.3 %)
=
Mushaya [15] (2012)*
Transsphincteric or complex
ERAF
14
19.2 months (1.7–32.2)
13 (92.9 %)
=
=
LIFT
25
23 (92 %)
=
*Randomized study; + improvement incontinence score; − worsening incontinence score; = no statistic difference in incontinence score
Table 32.2
Comparison of available approaches for management of transphincteric fistulas
Pt population
Intervention
Comparator
Outcomes studied
Patients with transsphincteric fistulas
Fistulotomy
Sphincter saving approach
Cure, continence

Search Strategy

We performed a literature search in the MEDLINE database (using PUBMED) under the search titles “transsphincteric fistula” or “fistula-in-ano”. We initially focused on prospective trials randomized studies. Further mining was performed using the reference lists of published systematic reviews. Given the lack of randomized trials involving all treatment interventions, especially the LIFT procedure, we did include multicenter prospective observation studies and multicenter center retrospective review studies. Although discussed in text, we excluded meta-analyses, single-surgeon reviews, single-surgeon observational studies and those published in foreign languages.

Results

Fistulotomy

Fistulotomies are performed by unroofing the track between the internal and external openings (Fig. 32.2). Reported recurrence rates are low. A zero recurrence rate was reported by a single surgeon case series of 38 patients over 5 years [17]. A more recent multicenter retrospective review of 537 patients undergoing fistulotomy for low perianal fistula reports a primary healing rate of 83.6 %, 81.7 % for transsphincteric, and a secondary healing rate of 90.3 % after treatment for recurrence [4]. Incontinence rates following fistulotomy depends on both the amount of muscle divided at the time of operation as well as any preexisting sphincter damage. Although Gottgens et al. reported a major incontinence rate of 28 %, the risk of incontinence in simple fistulas is very low. Abramowitz et al. described only a 1-point increase in Wexner score postoperatively after 1 year in patients undergoing fistulotomy for low fistula with a reported score ≤5 in 69 %. However, the median Wexner score worsened by 3 points for patients with high transsphincteric fistulas, which was statistically significant [5].
A371095_1_En_32_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Fig. 32.2
Fistulotomy (Fischer et al. [16])

Setons

Setons are the oldest recorded surgical approach to fistula management, first described by the Indian Surgeon Shushruta 1200 BC. A seton serves to drain sepsis, enables preservation of the sphincter mechanism and can prepare the patient for a two-stage procedure. A draining seton prevents the internal and external orifices of the fistulas from closing, allowing infection to dissipate. Cutting setons enable slow division of a fistula tract by pressure necrosis of the intervening tissue. Because the division is slow, it is postulated that this leads to greater fibrosis without a significant gap in the sphincter complex.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Aug 23, 2017 | Posted by in ABDOMINAL MEDICINE | Comments Off on Optimal Management of the Transsphincteric Anal Fistula

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access