Why do we have so much trouble treating anal fistula?

Anal fistula is among the most common illnesses affecting man. Medical literature dating back to 400 BC has discussed this problem. Various causative factors have been proposed throughout the centuries, but it appears that the majority of fistulas unrelated to specific causes (e.g. Tuberculosis, Crohn’s disease) result from infection (abscess) in anal glands extending from the intersphincteric plane to various anorectal spaces. The tubular structure of an anal fistula easily yields itself to division or unroofing (fistulotomy) or excision (fistulectomy) in most cases. The problem with this single, yet effective, treatment plan is that depending on the thickness of sphincter muscle the fistula transgresses, the patient will have varying degrees of fecal incontinence from minor to total. In an attempt to preserve continence, various procedures have been proposed to deal with the fistulas. These include: (1) simple drainage (Seton); (2) closure of fistula tract using fibrin sealant or anal fistula plug; (3) closure of primary opening using endorectal or dermal flaps, and more recently; and (4) ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT). In most complex cases (i.e. Crohn’s disease), a proximal fecal diversion offers a measure of symptomatic relief. The fact remains that an “ideal” procedure for anal fistula remains elusive. The failure of each sphincter-preserving procedure (30%-50% recurrence) often results in multiple operations. In essence, the price of preservation of continence at all cost is multiple and often different operations, prolonged disability and disappointment for the patient and the surgeon. Nevertheless, the surgeon treating anal fistulas on an occasional basis should never hesitate in referring the patient to a specialist. Conversely, an expert colorectal surgeon must be familiar with many different operations in order to selectively tailor an operation to the individual patient

Anorectal Infection: Abscess–Fistula

Anorectal abscess and fistula are among the most common diseases encountered in adults. Abscess and fistula should be considered the acute and chronic phase of the same anorectal infection. Abscesses are thought to begin as an infection in the anal glands spreading into adjacent spaces and resulting in fistulas in ~40% of cases. The treatment of an anorectal abscess is early, adequate, dependent drainage. The treatment of a fistula, although surgical in all cases, is more complex due to the possibility of fecal incontinence as a result of sphincterotomy. Primary fistulotomy and cutting setons have the same incidence of fecal incontinence depending on the complexity of the fistula. So even though the aim of a surgical procedure is to cure a fistula, conservative management short of major sphincterotomy is warranted to preserve fecal incontinence. However, trading radical surgery for conservative (nonsphincter cutting) procedures such as a draining seton, fibrin sealant, anal fistula plug, endorectal advancement flap, dermal island flap, anoplasty, and LIFT (ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract) procedure all result in more recurrence/persistence requiring repeated operations in many cases. A surgeon dealing with fistulas on a regular basis must tailor various operations to the needs of the patient depending on the complexity of the fistula encountered

Transanal Hemorrhoidal Dearterialization With Mucopexy versus Ferguson Hemorrhoidectomy for Prolapsed Internal Hemorrhoids: A Multicenter Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization (THD) with mucopexy to Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy in terms of recurrence rates and quality of life. BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the durability of the therapeutic effect of THD with mucopexy compared with Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy in terms of recurrence rates. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective study. Participating surgeons performed the operation they knew best enrolling 10 patients each. Surgeons\u27 unedited videos were reviewed by an independent expert. Patients with prolapsed internal hemorrhoids in at least 3 columns were eligible. The primary endpoint was recurrence rates defined as prolapsing internal hemorrhoids. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction were evaluated with Pain Scale and Brief Pain Inventory, Fecal Incontinence Quality Of Life (FIQOL), Cleveland Clinic Incontinence, Constipation, Short-Form 12 scores, and Patient satisfaction (4-point Likert) scale. RESULTS: Twenty surgeons enrolled 197 patients. THD patients had lower Visual pain scores at postoperative day (POD) 1 (6.2 vs 8.3, P =0.047), POD7 (4.5 vs 7.7, P =0.021), POD14 (2.8 vs 5.3, P \u3c0.001), and medication use at POD14 (23% vs 58%, P \u3c0.001). Median follow-up was 3.1 (1.0-5.5) years. Recurrence rates did not differ between the study arms (5.9% vs 2.4%, P =0.253). Patient satisfaction rate was higher after THD at POD14 (76.4% vs 52.5%, P =0.031) and 3 months (95.1% vs 63.3%, P =0.029), but did not differ at 6 months (91.7% vs 88%, P =0.228) and 1 year (94.2% vs 88%, P =0.836). CONCLUSION: THD with mucopexy was associated with improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life as compared with Ferguson hemorrhoidectomy with nonsignificantly different recurrence rates