| Literature DB >> 21808642 |
S J van der Hagen1, C G Baeten, P B Soeters, W G van Gemert.
Abstract
Background. In this prospective randomised study, the staged mucosal advancement flap is compared with staged fibrin sealant application in the treatment of perianal fistulas. Methods. All patients with high complex cryptoglandular fistulas were randomised to closure of the internal opening by a mucosal advancement flap (MF) or injection with fibrin sealant (FS) after treatment with setons. Recurrence rate and incontinence disorders were explored. Results. The MF group (5 females and 10 males) with a median age of 51 years and a median followup of 52 months. The FS group (4 females and 11 males) with a median age of 45 years and a median followup of 49 months. Three (20%) patients of the MF group had a recurrent fistula compared to 9 (60%) of the FS group (P = 0.03). No new continence disorders developed. Conclusion. Staged FS injection has a much lower success rate compared to MF.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21808642 PMCID: PMC3144662 DOI: 10.1155/2011/186350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Figure 1Flow chart of patients with perianal fistulas treated in the Academic Hospital of Maastricht between 2005 and 2006.
Figure 3An example of double seton placement in an extra external opening.
Figure 4Injection of fibrin sealant injection (FS) after the seton was removed and curetted with a sharp spoon.
Figure 2(a) Treatment of patients with recurrent fistulas after MF. (b) Treatment of patients with recurrent fistulas after FS.
(a)
| MF | FS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| 1 fistula track |
|
|
|
| 2 or more fistula tracks |
|
|
|
| Abscess |
|
|
|
| Residual inflammation and prolonged seton treatment |
|
|
|
(b)
| MF | FS | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| |||
| Sex | Male | Male |
|
| Female | Female | ||
| Age (years) | 51 (range 39–70) | 45 (range 30–68) |
|
| Median followup (months) | 52 (46–60) months | 49 (49–59) months |
|
| Tobacco smokers |
|
|
|
| Soiling (before treatment) |
|
|
|
Table Patients outcome.
| MF | FS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Failure of treatment |
|
| |
| Recurrent fistula |
|
|
|
| Soiling after treatment |
|
| |
| Recurrent fistula | ( | ( |
|
| In tobacco smokers |
|
| |
| Median quality-of-life score: | |||
| Before treatment | 85 | 87 |
|
| After 6 months | 86 | 90 |
|
| After 12 months | 87 | 84 |
|
| Vaizey incontinence score | |||
| Before treatment | 0.50 (0–4) | 0.73 (0–4) |
|
| After 6 months | 0.50 (0–4) | 0.73 (0–4) |
|
| After 12 months | 0.50 (0–4) | 0.73 (0–4) |
|