Rectovaginal Fistula: What is the Role of Martius Flap and Gracilis Muscle Interposition in the Therapeutic Strategy?


Journal

Diseases of the colon and rectum
ISSN: 1530-0358
Titre abrégé: Dis Colon Rectum
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372764

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Apr 2024
Historique:
medline: 24 4 2024
pubmed: 24 4 2024
entrez: 23 4 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

While numerous treatments exist for management of rectovaginal fistula, none has demonstrated its superiority. The role of diverting stoma remains controversial. Few series include Martius flap in the armamentarium. Determine the role of gracilis muscle interposition and Martius flap in the surgical management of rectovaginal fistula. Retrospective cohort study of a pooled prospectively maintained database from 3 centers. All consecutive eligible patients with rectovaginal fistula undergoing Martius flap and gracilis muscle interposition were included from 2001 to 2022. Success was defined by absence of stoma and rectovaginal fistula. Sixty-two patients were included with 55 Martius flap and 24 gracilis muscle interposition performed after failures of 164 initial procedures. Total length of stay was longer for gracilis muscle interposition by 2 days (p = 0.01) without a significant difference in severe morbidity (20% vs. 12%, p = 0.53). 27% of Martius flap were performed without stoma, without impact on overall morbidity (p = 0.763). Per-patient immediate success rates were not significantly different between groups (35% vs. 31%, p = 1.0). Success of gracilis muscle interposition after failure of Martius flap was not significantly different from an initial gracilis muscle interposition (p = 1.0). The immediate success rate rose to 49.4% (49% vs. 50%, p = 1.0) after simple perineal procedures. After a median follow-up of 23 months, there was no significant difference detected in success rate between the two procedures (69% vs. 69%, p = 1.0). Smoking was the only negative predictive factor (p = 0.02). By its retrospective nature, this study is limited in its comparison. This novel comparison between Martius flap and gracilis muscle interposition suggests that Martius flap presents several advantages, including shorter length of stay, similar morbidity, and success. Proximal diversion via a stoma for Martius flap does not appear mandatory. Gracilis muscle interposition could be reserved as a salvage procedure after Martius flap failure. See Video Abstract.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
While numerous treatments exist for management of rectovaginal fistula, none has demonstrated its superiority. The role of diverting stoma remains controversial. Few series include Martius flap in the armamentarium.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Determine the role of gracilis muscle interposition and Martius flap in the surgical management of rectovaginal fistula.
DESIGN METHODS
Retrospective cohort study of a pooled prospectively maintained database from 3 centers.
SETTINGS/PATIENTS UNASSIGNED
All consecutive eligible patients with rectovaginal fistula undergoing Martius flap and gracilis muscle interposition were included from 2001 to 2022.
MAIN OUTCOMES RESULTS
Success was defined by absence of stoma and rectovaginal fistula.
RESULTS RESULTS
Sixty-two patients were included with 55 Martius flap and 24 gracilis muscle interposition performed after failures of 164 initial procedures. Total length of stay was longer for gracilis muscle interposition by 2 days (p = 0.01) without a significant difference in severe morbidity (20% vs. 12%, p = 0.53). 27% of Martius flap were performed without stoma, without impact on overall morbidity (p = 0.763). Per-patient immediate success rates were not significantly different between groups (35% vs. 31%, p = 1.0). Success of gracilis muscle interposition after failure of Martius flap was not significantly different from an initial gracilis muscle interposition (p = 1.0). The immediate success rate rose to 49.4% (49% vs. 50%, p = 1.0) after simple perineal procedures. After a median follow-up of 23 months, there was no significant difference detected in success rate between the two procedures (69% vs. 69%, p = 1.0). Smoking was the only negative predictive factor (p = 0.02).
LIMITATIONS CONCLUSIONS
By its retrospective nature, this study is limited in its comparison.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
This novel comparison between Martius flap and gracilis muscle interposition suggests that Martius flap presents several advantages, including shorter length of stay, similar morbidity, and success. Proximal diversion via a stoma for Martius flap does not appear mandatory. Gracilis muscle interposition could be reserved as a salvage procedure after Martius flap failure. See Video Abstract.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38653492
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000003148
pii: 00003453-990000000-00625
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © The ASCRS 2024.

Auteurs

Clément Pastier (C)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Jérôme Loriau (J)

Department of Visceral Surgery, Groupe Hospitalier Saint Joseph, Paris, France.

Quentin Denost (Q)

Bordeaux Colorectal Institute, Bordeaux, France.

Lauren O'Connell (L)

Centre for Colorectal Disease, St. Vincents University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

Alexandre Challine (A)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Maxime Collard (M)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Clotilde Debove (C)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Najim Chafai (N)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Yann Parc (Y)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Jérémie H Lefevre (JH)

Sorbonne Université, Department of Digestive Surgery, AP-HP, Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France.

Classifications MeSH