BACKGROUND: The ideal surgery following seton insertion for high anal fistulas remains debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the success between the endorectal advancement flap and the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract techniques as the definitive procedure following seton placement. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, between April 2006 and July 2011. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: After seton placement for high anal fistulas, 31 and 24 patients underwent the endorectal advancement flap and the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Failure was defined as the nonhealing of the surgical wounds or persistent discharge at the external opening. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients with a median age of 49 (range, 19-74) years in the endorectal advancement flap group. The median interval from the seton procedure to the flap procedure was 13 (range, 4-284) weeks. Over a median follow up of 6 (range, 2-26) months, 29 (93.5%) patients had successful outcomes. There were 24 patients, median age 41 (range, 16-75) years, in the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract group. The median interval from the seton placement to the definitive surgery was 14 (range, 8-74) weeks. Over a median follow-up of 13 (range, 4-67) months, 15 (62.5%) patients had successful outcomes. Hence when performed as the initial definitive procedure after a seton, the endorectal advancement flap technique had a significantly higher success rate in comparison with the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract approach (93.5% vs 62.5%) (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In patients who have had seton placement for high anal fistulas, the endorectal advancement flap technique is associated with better short-term outcomes in comparison with the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract technique.
BACKGROUND: The ideal surgery following seton insertion for high anal fistulas remains debatable. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the success between the endorectal advancement flap and the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract techniques as the definitive procedure following seton placement. DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at the Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, between April 2006 and July 2011. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: After seton placement for high anal fistulas, 31 and 24 patients underwent the endorectal advancement flap and the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract procedures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Failure was defined as the nonhealing of the surgical wounds or persistent discharge at the external opening. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients with a median age of 49 (range, 19-74) years in the endorectal advancement flap group. The median interval from the seton procedure to the flap procedure was 13 (range, 4-284) weeks. Over a median follow up of 6 (range, 2-26) months, 29 (93.5%) patients had successful outcomes. There were 24 patients, median age 41 (range, 16-75) years, in the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract group. The median interval from the seton placement to the definitive surgery was 14 (range, 8-74) weeks. Over a median follow-up of 13 (range, 4-67) months, 15 (62.5%) patients had successful outcomes. Hence when performed as the initial definitive procedure after a seton, the endorectal advancement flap technique had a significantly higher success rate in comparison with the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract approach (93.5% vs 62.5%) (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In patients who have had seton placement for high anal fistulas, the endorectal advancement flap technique is associated with better short-term outcomes in comparison with the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract technique.
Authors: Carlos Chaveli Diaz; Irene Esquiroz Lizaur; José Marzo Virto; Fabiola Oteiza Martínez; Gregorio Gonzalez Álvarez; Mario de Miguel Velasco; Miguel Ángel Ciga Lozano Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 2.571