| Literature DB >> 35212835 |
M J Gómez-Jurado1, M Martí-Gallostra1, G Pellino2,3, A Galvez4, E Kreisler4, S Biondo4, E Espín-Basany1.
Abstract
BACKGOUND: Effective, standardized treatments for complex anal fistula (CAF) still represent a clinical challenge. Emerging procedures attempted to achieve the healing rates of fistulotomy whilst preserving sphincter function. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) used as a plug inserted through the fistulous tract is among newer treatment options. Varying success rates have been reported, most with short-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to report the long-term results of ADM-plug for CAF.Entities:
Keywords: ADM; Acellular dermal matrix; Complex fistula; Perianal fistula; Plug
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35212835 PMCID: PMC9072521 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-022-02593-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tech Coloproctol ISSN: 1123-6337 Impact factor: 3.699
Fig. 1Patient in prone position. A Overview of fistula tract. B Curettage removing scarring tissue. C Cleaning the tract with saline solution. D ADM-plug into the tract with the wide part in the internal orifice. E Stitching the plug to the internal orifice. F Plug stitched on opened external orifice. ADM acellular dermal matrix
Fig. 2Flowchart of patients included in the study. ADM acellular dermal matrix, HUB Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, HUVH Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron
Baseline patient characteristics
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Age, median (range), years | 55 (33–74) |
| Sex, | 7 F (31.8%)–15 M (68.2%) |
| Ulcerative colitis (cryptoglandular) | 3 (13.6%) |
| Immunosuppression, | 2 (9.1%) |
| Park’s classification | |
| Supra/transsphincteric fistula | 68.2% |
| Middle/low transsphincteric fistula | 31.8% |
| Fistula location | |
| Anterior | 41% |
| Posterior | 59% |
| Previous procedures for CAF | |
| 1st treatment | 36.4% |
| 2nd line | 31.8% |
| 3rd line | 27.3% |
| 4th line | 9.1% |
CAF: complex anal fistula
Comparison of baseline characteristics according to the outcome
| Variable | Healing | No healing/recurrence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, median (range) years | 58 (44–74) | 46 (33–74) | 0.0823 |
| Sex | 2F–11M | 5 F–4M | 0.074 |
| Smoking | 4 (30.8%) | 4 (44.4%) | 0.662 |
| Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) | 2 (15.4%) | 1 (11.1%) | > 0.99 |
| Immunosuppression | 1 (11.1%) | 1 (11.1%) | > 0.99 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (11.1%) | 0.616 |
| Arterial hypertension | 6 (46.1%) | 1 (11.1%) | 0.07 |
BMI body mass index
Comparison of fistula characteristics according to the outcome
| Fistula characteristics | Healing group | Non-healing group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time between seton placement and surgery—median (range), months | 12.6 (2–37) | 23.2 (7–48) | 0.18 |
| Type of fistula | 0.65 | ||
| Suprasphinteric and high transsphincteric— | 8 (53.3%) | 7 (46.7%) | |
| Middle and low transsphincteric— | 5 (71.4%) | 2 (28.6%) | |
| Location | > 0.99 | ||
| Anterior— | 5 (55.6%) | 4 (44.4%) | |
| Posterior— | 8 (61.5%) | 5 (38.5%) | |
| Mucosal pocket added | > 0.99 | ||
| Mucosal pocket— | 10 (58.8%) | 7 (41.2%) | |
| No mucosal pocket— | 3 (60%) | 2 (40%) | |
| Line of treatment | > 0.99 | ||
| First-line treatment— | 5 (62.5%) | 3 (37.5%) | |
| Recurrent fistula— | 8 (57.1%) | 6 (42.9%) | |
Secondary treatments and outcomes
| Secondary treatment | No more surgery | Seton placement | Advancement flap | PRP | Permacol paste |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients, | 2 (22.2%) | 3 (33.3%) | 1 (11.1%) | 1 (11.1%) | 2 (22.2%) |
| Healing, | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (50%) |
No healing, (increased well-being) | 2 (100%) | 3 (100%) | – | – | 1 (50%) |
PRP platelet-rich plasma
Fig. 3Overall distribution of recurrence over time (40.9% “no healing”)