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