Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract versus mucosal advancement flap in patients with high transsphincteric fistula-in-ano: a prospective randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula track with the mucosal advancement flap in the treatment of high transsphincteric anal fistulas. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective randomized study performed at academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients with transsphincteric anal fistulas involving the upper part of anal sphincter were included. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either ligation of intersphincteric fistula track or mucosal advancement flap. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end points of the study were fistula closure, recurrence within 1 year, and continence by using the Wexner score. Secondary end points were morbidity, postoperative pain with the use of the visual analog scale, and quality of life with the use of the Cleveland Global Quality of Life score. RESULTS: There were 70 patients (35 in each group). Mean age was 36.1 years in patients undergoing ligation of the intersphincteric fistula track vs 32.9 years in patients undergoing mucosal advancement flap (p = 0.33). Mean visual analog scale after 1 week was significantly higher in the mucosal advancement flap group than in the ligation of intersphincteric fistula track group (3.1 vs 4.8, p = 0.04), but no significant difference was found after 4 weeks. Primary healing was achieved in 33 patients undergoing ligation of the intersphincteric fistula track vs 32 patients undergoing mucosal advancement flap (p = 0.99). Mean healing time was 22.6 days in the ligation of intersphincteric fistula track group vs 32.1 days in mucosal advancement flap group (p = 0.01). After 1 year of follow-up, successful outcome was achieved in 26 patients (74.3%) undergoing ligation of intersphincteric fistula track and in 20 patients (65.7%) undergoing mucosal advancement flap (p = 0.58). No significant change in Wexner score occurred 4 weeks postoperatively. There was no significant difference between groups regarding Cleveland Global Quality of Life score (p = 0.5 and 0.07 after 4 and 12 weeks). LIMITATIONS: The short-term follow-up is a probable limitation. Although the sample size was calculated to detect difference with 80% power at a significance level of 5%, the negative result within this relatively small number of patients might have resulted from type II statistical error. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high transsphincteric anal fistulas, both ligation of intersphincteric fistula track procedure and mucosal advancement flap have a similar long-term healing rate, recurrences, continence, and quality of life. However, ligation of the intersphincteric fistula track has the advantage of less postoperative pain.

Colonic endolumenal stenting devices and elective surgery versus emergency subtotal/total colectomy in the management of malignant obstructed left colon carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, left-sided acute bowel obstruction is treated by a staged procedure because immediate resection and anastomosis in a massive distended and unprepared colon carries a high complication rate. Total abdominal colectomy is a one-stage procedure that will remove synchronous proximal neoplasms, reduce the risk of subsequent metachronous tumor, and avoid stoma. Colorectal stents are being used for palliation and as a bridge to surgery in obstructing colorectal carcinoma, making elective surgery straightforward, enabling easily mobilization and resection of the colon with a possible trend toward reduction in postoperative complication rates compared to emergency surgery. The purpose of this work was to compare the procedures of endoscopic stenting followed by elective colectomy versus total abdominal colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis in the management of acute obstructed carcinoma of the left colon as regards feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes METHODS: From January 2009 through May 2012, 60 patients were randomized to either emergency stenting followed by elective resection (ESER group) or total abdominal colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis (TACIR group). RESULTS: Twenty nine patients (96.7 %) had successful stenting and underwent elective surgery 7-10 days later (ESER group). Postoperative complications were encountered in four patients in the ESER group compared to 15 patients in the TACIR group (p = 0.012). Anastomotic leakage was encountered in one patient (3.3 %) in the TACIR group. There were no operative mortalities in the present study. Within the first three postoperative months, the TACIR group patients had significantly more frequent bowel motions per day compared to the ESER group patients although (p = 0.013). In both study groups, the follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 40 months with a median of 18 months. Recurrent disease was encountered in five patients (17.2 %) in the ESER group compared to four patients (13.3 %) in the TACIR group (p = 0.228). CONCLUSION: Both techniques are feasible, safe, and produce comparable oncological outcomes. However, endoscopic stenting followed by elective resection was associated with significantly less postoperative complications and bowel motions per day.