Loose combined cutting seton for patients with high intersphincteric fistula: a retrospective study.
High anal fistula
continence
cutting seton
loose seton
Journal
Annals of translational medicine
ISSN: 2305-5839
Titre abrégé: Ann Transl Med
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101617978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
entrez:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
13
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Achieving a complete cure while maintaining continence constitutes a considerable challenge in the treatment of patients with high anal fistula. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of loose combined cutting seton (LCCS) for treating patients with high intersphincteric fistula. Consecutive patients with high intersphincteric fistula who underwent LCCS were retrospectively enrolled. Patient data including demographics, medical history, comorbidities, details of the fistula, operative procedure, and prognosis were collected. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), which ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extremely severe pain). The severity of fecal incontinence was assessed using the Wexner Continence Grading Scale, with a total score ranging from 0 (no incontinence) to 20 (complete incontinence). The primary outcome was the healing rate of fistula. Secondary outcomes included the recurrence rate of fistula and the severity of fecal incontinence. The 22 patients (male: female =18:4) in our study had a median follow-up of 55 (range, 32-568) days. The healing rate was 100%, and none of the patients experienced fistula recurrence. At the follow-up visit, 19 patients (86.4%) reported no fecal incontinence. The median total Wexner score was 0. 95.5% patients had VAS score of 0 and only 1 patient (4.5%) had a VAS score of 1, which indicated a low level of postoperative pain. LCCS achieved a high healing rate with an increased level of continence, as well as a low level of postoperative pain, in most patients with high anal fistula in our study. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this novel seton-based technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Achieving a complete cure while maintaining continence constitutes a considerable challenge in the treatment of patients with high anal fistula. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of loose combined cutting seton (LCCS) for treating patients with high intersphincteric fistula.
METHODS
METHODS
Consecutive patients with high intersphincteric fistula who underwent LCCS were retrospectively enrolled. Patient data including demographics, medical history, comorbidities, details of the fistula, operative procedure, and prognosis were collected. Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), which ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extremely severe pain). The severity of fecal incontinence was assessed using the Wexner Continence Grading Scale, with a total score ranging from 0 (no incontinence) to 20 (complete incontinence). The primary outcome was the healing rate of fistula. Secondary outcomes included the recurrence rate of fistula and the severity of fecal incontinence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 22 patients (male: female =18:4) in our study had a median follow-up of 55 (range, 32-568) days. The healing rate was 100%, and none of the patients experienced fistula recurrence. At the follow-up visit, 19 patients (86.4%) reported no fecal incontinence. The median total Wexner score was 0. 95.5% patients had VAS score of 0 and only 1 patient (4.5%) had a VAS score of 1, which indicated a low level of postoperative pain.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
LCCS achieved a high healing rate with an increased level of continence, as well as a low level of postoperative pain, in most patients with high anal fistula in our study. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effectiveness of this novel seton-based technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33178768
doi: 10.21037/atm-20-6123
pii: atm-08-19-1236
pmc: PMC7607110
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1236Informations de copyright
2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-6123). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Gut. 1999 Jan;44(1):77-80
pubmed: 9862829
Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013 Dec;42(4):773-84
pubmed: 24280399
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 Nov;26(11):1495
pubmed: 21279366
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007 Dec;22(12):1459-62
pubmed: 17554546
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Jun;13(6):1116-9
pubmed: 19238493
BMC Gastroenterol. 2011 Nov 09;11:120
pubmed: 22070555
ANZ J Surg. 2015 Oct;85(10):720-7
pubmed: 25997475
Colorectal Dis. 2009 Jun;11(5):524-6
pubmed: 19175658
Surgeon. 2008 Jun;6(3):185-8
pubmed: 18581757
Dis Colon Rectum. 2012 Dec;55(12):1273-7
pubmed: 23135586
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jul 28;17(28):3277-85
pubmed: 21876614
Br J Surg. 1998 Feb;85(2):243-5
pubmed: 9501826
Tech Coloproctol. 2014 Oct;18(10):915-9
pubmed: 24989839
Dis Colon Rectum. 1996 Feb;39(2):208-11
pubmed: 8620789
Tech Coloproctol. 2004 Nov;8(3):159-62
pubmed: 15654522
Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 May;53(5):812-6
pubmed: 20389216
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 Jun;26(6):793-8
pubmed: 21431319
Singapore Med J. 2002 Jun;43(6):305-7
pubmed: 12380728
World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jul 28;17(28):3292-6
pubmed: 21876616
Dig Surg. 2012;29(4):292-300
pubmed: 22948115
Tech Coloproctol. 2003 Jul;7(2):89-94
pubmed: 14605927
J Gastroenterol. 2002;37(11):912-5
pubmed: 12483246
Tech Coloproctol. 2015 Oct;19(10):595-606
pubmed: 26377581
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010 Dec;25(12):1499-502
pubmed: 20645104
Am J Surg. 1999 Feb;177(2):147-9
pubmed: 10204559