RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prior studies focus primarily on surgical outcomes of anal fistula treatment, such as healing rates, rather than patient-reported outcomes, such as postoperative pain, which could influence surgical choice. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain scores at 6 and 24 h postoperatively between laser closure and ligation of the intersphincteric tract for anal fistula. DESIGN: Prospective, double-blinded randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: A quaternary hospital in Malaysia. PATIENTS: Patients aged 18-75 years with high transsphincteric fistulas. INTERVENTION: Fistula laser closure versus ligation of the fistula tract (LIFT) treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores, continence, quality of life (QOL), operative time, and treatment failure were compared using chi-square, Fisher's exact test, student t-test, or Mann-Whitney with p < 0.05 denoting statistical significance. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were recruited (laser, n = 28, LIFT, n = 28). Median pain scores for laser versus LIFT at 6 h postoperatively were 1.0 versus 2.0 (Rest, p = 0.213) and 3.0 versus 4.0 (Movement, p = 0.448), respectively. At 24 h, this reduced to 2.5 in both arms at rest (p = 0.842) but increased to 4.8 versus 3.5 on movement (p = 0.383). Median operative time for laser was significantly shorter (32.5 min) than LIFT (p < 0.001). Laser treated patients trended toward quicker return to work (10.5 vs. 14.0, p = 0.181) but treatment failure was similar (54% vs. 50%, p = 0.71). No patients developed postoperative incontinence. Mean SF-36 scores increased from baseline (67.1 ± 17.0; 95% CI 63.6-82.4 vs. 71.3 ± 11.4; 95% CI 64.0-75.0) to 6 months postoperatively (77.7 ± 21.0; 95% CI 57.0-80.3 vs. 74.0 ± 14.3; 95% CI 67.6-81.4) regardless of the type of surgery (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS: Patients with prior fistula surgery (approximately 20%) led to heterogeneity. The total laser energy delivered varied depending on fistula anatomy. CONCLUSION: Laser fistula closure is an alternative to LIFT, with similar postoperative pain and shorter operative time despite more complex fistula anatomy in the laser arm, with a greater improvement in QOL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06212739.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological patterns and survival outcomes of patients with young-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) in Malaysia. METHODS: A total of 206 patients with young-onset CRC (age < 50 years at diagnosis) and 1,715 patients with late-onset CRC (age ≥ 50 years at diagnosis) diagnosed during 2002-2016 were included. The clinicopathological characteristics of patients with young-onset CRC were compared with those of patients with late-onset CRC during 2009-2013. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to determine the overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in these patients. RESULTS: The overall proportion of young-onset CRC was 10.7%. The mean age for young-onset CRC was 39.5 ± 7.4 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.2:1. There were more Malay patients with young-onset CRC than late-onset CRC (44.0% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.004). Most CRCs were diagnosed at an advanced stage in both groups. However, young-onset CRC showed more aggressive tumour characteristics, such as poorer differentiation and mucinous subtype. Despite such differences, the OS and DSS in both groups were similar (five-year OS for young-onset CRC vs. late-onset CRC: 44.2% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.40; five-year DSS for young-onset CRC vs. late-onset CRC: 48.8% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.53; mean survival of young-onset CRC vs. late-onset CRC: 4.9 years vs. 5.4 years, p = 0.15). Advanced stage at diagnosis and the treatment modality used were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: The unique ethnic and histological differences between patients with young- and late-onset CRC suggest that young-onset CRC may represent a distinct entity. However, despite such differences, both groups were equivalent.
