Efficacy of Permacol injection for perianal fistulas in a tertiary referral population: poor outcome in patients with complex fistulas.

AIM: Injection of Permacol collagen paste can be used as a sphincter-sparing treatment for perianal fistulas. In a tertiary referral population we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Permacol injection and the clinical and fistula-related factors associated with recurrence. METHOD: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with perianal fistulas treated with Permacol injection at a specialist centre between June 2015 and April 2019. Endoanal ultrasonography was systematically reanalysed, blinded to treatment outcome. Rectovaginal, anovaginal and Crohn's disease fistulas were excluded. Healed fistulas were defined as absent anal symptoms and a closed external opening on physical examination at a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with unhealed fistulas. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients (51 men; median age 45 years) were analysed. Seventy-two (80.0%) patients had complex perianal fistulas (greater than one-third sphincter involvement or multiple tracts). After a single Permacol injection, fistulas were healed in 20 (22.2%) patients at 3 months follow-up and in 18 (20.0%) patients at a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range 17-37). Eight (11.1%) patients with unhealed fistulas had significant improvement in their symptoms. Complex fistulas were significantly associated with unhealed status [OR 3.53 (95% CI 1.12-11.09); p = 0.031]. Twenty patients underwent subsequent Permacol injections, which were successful in six (30.0%) patients after one (n = 3) or two (n = 3) additional injections. CONCLUSION: This largest study to date in patients with mainly complex perianal fistulas, demonstrated that the efficacy of a single Permacol injection was only 20%. Complex fistulas were associated with a poor outcome.

Knotless seton for perianal fistulas: feasibility and effect on perianal disease activity.

Patients with perianal fistulas are frequently treated by a knotted seton which is well-known for causing complaints. We aimed to assess the feasibility of the knotless SuperSeton and advantages with respect to perianal disease activity. In a prospective cohort study, we included all consecutive adult patients with a knotted seton in situ or a perianal fistula requiring new seton drainage. Primary endpoint was seton feasibility (maintenance of the connection for minimally three months). Secondary endpoints included improvement of the Perianal Disease Activity Index (PDAI), complications and re-interventions within three months of follow-up. PDAI scores of patients with a knotted seton were crossover compared to PDAI scores after knotless seton replacement. Sixty patients (42% male, mean age 42 (SD 13.15), 41 with Crohn's disease) were included between August 2016 and April 2018. Of 79 knotless setons, 69 (87.3%) stayed connected for ≥ 3 months. Overall, the knotless seton significantly decreased discharge (P = 0.001), pain (P < 0.001) and induration (P < 0.001) measured by the PDAI when compared to baseline. In patients with a knotted seton, replacement by the knotless seton significantly decreased discharge (P = 0.005) and pain (P < 0.001) measured by the PDAI. Furthermore, 71% of patients reported fewer cleaning problems compared to the knotted seton. Ten patients developed a perianal abscess, and five patients required a re-intervention. This study supports the feasibility of the knotless seton with promising short-term results. The knotless seton might be preferred over the knotted seton in terms of perianal disease activity.

3D high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with perianal fistulas: comparison with 3D-anal ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Perianal fistula surgery can damage the anal sphincters which may cause faecal incontinence. By measuring regional pressures, 3D-HRAM potentially provides better guidance for surgical strategy in patients with perianal fistulas. The aim was to measure regional anal pressures with 3D-HRAM and to compare these with 3D-EUS findings in patients with perianal fistulas. METHODS: Consecutive patients with active perianal fistulas who underwent both 3D-EUS and 3D-HRAM at a clinic specialised in proctology were included. A group of 30 patients without fistulas served as controls. Data regarding demographics, complaints, previous perianal surgical procedures and obstetric history were collected. The mean and regional anal pressures were measured with 3D-HRAM. Fistula tract areas detected with 3D-EUS were analysed with 3D-HRAM by visual coding and the regional pressures of the corresponding and surrounding area of the fistula tract areas were measured. The study was granted by the VUmc Medical Ethical Committee. RESULTS: Forty patients (21 males, mean age 47) were included. Four patients had a primary fistula, 19 were previously treated with a seton/abscess drainage and 17 had a recurrence after previously performed fistula surgery. On 3D-HRAM, 24 (60%) fistula tract areas were good and 8 (20%) moderately visible. All but 7 (18%) patients had normal mean resting pressures. The mean resting pressure of the fistula tract area was significantly lower compared to the surrounding area (47 vs. 76 mmHg; p < 0.0001). Only 2 (5%) patients had a regional mean resting pressure < 10 mmHg of the fistula tract area. Using a Δ mean resting pressure ≥ 30 mmHg difference between fistula tract area and non-fistula tract area as alternative cut-off, 21 (53%) patients were identified. In 6 patients 3D-HRAM was repeated after surgery: a local pressure drop was detected in one patient after fistulotomy with increased complaints of faecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Profound local anal pressure drops are found in the fistula tract areas in patients normal mean resting pressures. Fistulotomy may affect local sphincter pressure. This might influence surgical decision making in future.

[Survey among gynaecologists and surgeons on rectocele]. / Enquête onder gynaecologen en chirurgen over rectocele.

OBJECTIVE: Provide insight into how gynaecologists and surgeons name, diagnose and treat a rectocele and identify the differences between these two professional groups. DESIGN: Questionnaire survey. METHODS: We sent an online survey with 16 multiple-choice questions to gynaecologists and surgeons from two national working groups. RESULTS: There is no discernible consensus on nomenclature, diagnostics and treatment. Gynaecologists and surgeons each choose their own approach. CONCLUSION: It is in the patient's interest to draw up a joint guideline; however, multidisciplinary cooperation is only possible if gynaecologists and surgeons speak the same language.