«1234567»Seite
9 articles, page 1 of 9

Clinical Practice Guideline

Cryptoglandular Anal Fistulas

Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108(42): 707-13; DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0707

Ommer, A; Herold, A; Berg, E; Fürst, A; Sailer, M; Schiedeck, T

End- und Dickdarmpraxis Essen: Dr. med. Ommer
End- und Dickdarmzentrum Mannheim: Prof. Dr. med. Herold
Prosper Hospital Recklinghausen: Dr. med. Berg
Caritas Krankenhaus Regensburg: Prof. Dr. med. Fürst
Bethesda-Krankenhaus Hamburg: Prof. Dr. med. Sailer
Klinikum Ludwigsburg: Prof. Dr. med. Schiedeck

Background: Cryptoglandular anal fistula arises in 2 per 10 000 persons per year and is most common in young men. Improper treatment can result in fecal incontinence and thus in impaired quality of life.

Method: This S3 guideline is based on a systematic review of the pertinent literature.

Results: The level of evidence for treatment is low, because relevant randomized trials are scarce. Anal fistulae are classified according to the relation of the fistula channel to the sphincter. The indication for treatment is established by the clinical history and physical examination. During surgery, the fistula should be probed and/or dyed. Endo-anal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are of roughly the same diagnostic value and may be useful as additional studies for complex fistulae. Surgical treatment is with one of the following operations: laying open, seton drainage, plastic surgical reconstruction with suturing of the sphincter, and occlusion with biomaterials. Only superficial fistulae should be laid open. The risk of postoperative incontinence is directly related to the thickness of sphincter muscle that is divided. All high anal fistulae should be treated with a sphincter-saving procedure. The various plastic surgical reconstructive procedures all yield roughly the same results. Occlusion with biomaterials yields a lower cure rate.

Conclusion: This is the first German S3 guideline for the treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula. It includes recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of this clinical entity.

With an incidence of around 2 per 10 000 head of population per year, anal fistula is a frequent condition with a peak incidence between 30 and 50 years of age (1). Men are affected more often than women (2).

Method

The content of the present guideline is based on an extensive review of the literature (Figure 1 gif ppt). Definitions of evidence level, recommendation grade, and consensus strength were established (e1, e2) (Table 1 gif ppt, 2 gif ppt). The text was agreed by the guideline group (Box 1 gif ppt) at two consensus conferences.

Classification

Cryptoglandular anal fistulas arise from an inflammation of the proctodeal glands, which in humans are only rudimentary, and are situated in the intersphincteric space (e3). A communication forms between an opening at the level of the dentate line and one in the perianal region.

In clinical routine, classification according to the relationship to the sphincter has proved useful (3) (Figure 2 gif ppt). Types 4 and 5 are not cryptoglandular fistulas.

In clinical routine, intersphincteric and distal trans-sphincteric fistulas are called low fistulas and proximal trans-sphincteric and suprasphincteric fistulas are called high fistulas. The most frequently encountered are uncomplicated distal fistula tracts (e4) (evidence level: 4; recommendation grade: 0; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Symptoms and diagnosis

The typical symptom of anal fistula is discharge from a perianal opening.

Digital examination and probing are sufficient for diagnosis (4).

The tract of the fistula and its relationship to the sphincter muscle can be investigated by probing and/or dyeing intraoperatively with the patient under anesthesia (5, e5).

If the history suggests it, chronic inflammatory bowel disease should be ruled out perioperatively. Sphincter function should be assessed before any operative intervention, on the basis of the history and, if appropriate, an incontinence score (evidence level: 4; recommendation grade: B; consensus strength: strong consensus).

In cases of complex recurring anal fistulas the use of imaging techniques should be considered (6, e6).

Because of the radiation burden, visualization of fistulas using contrast media (e7) and computed tomography (CT) is regarded as obsolete.

A simple and cheap technique available is endosonography, the usefulness of which can be improved by contrast enhancement, e.g., using hydrogen peroxide. The correlation between intra-anal ultrasonography and intraoperative clinical examination is better than 90% (6, e8e10). The advantage of endosonography is that it is easy and cheap to use, but it does depend to a high degree on the examiner’s experience.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be employed either as an external investigation with or without contrast medium, or using an intrarectal coil (7, e11). MRI is cost-intensive, not always available, and its diagnostic value depends on technical conditions; however, it is to be preferred to endosonography for lesions distant from the anus. Other advantages of MRI are that it allows pain-free acquisition of images that can be evaluated independently of the examiner (evidence level: 1a; recommendation grade: A; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Therapeutic procedures

A diagnosis of anal fistula is usually an indication for surgery in order to prevent a recurring septic process. The choice of operative technique is governed by the fistula tract and its relation to the anal sphincter. The literature on treating anal fistulas has been covered in several reviews (810) and a Cochrane analysis (11).

Unfortunately a total of only 10 randomized studies have been carried out, each of which compared only partial aspects of treatment for fistula. The other studies are observational studies from various hospitals with inhomogeneous patient groups. Because of this, the conclusions of the reviews are mostly of a general nature.

Published guidelines of other professional organizations (12, 13) are partly out of date, since for example the plug technique is not included.

To produce the present guideline, the available literature was analyzed afresh and the results set out in evidence tables. These may be accessed via the Internet at www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/088–003l_S3_Kryptoglanduläre_Analfisteln_2011_10.pdf (German-language publication).

Fistulotomy

The most common operative technique in use is fistulotomy, that is, division of the tissue between the fistula tract and the anal canal. Twenty-eight studies, most of them retrospective, that dealt with this treatment were identified. Healing rates are between 74% and 100%. Rates of impaired continence vary between 0 and 45% (1416, e12e18). For low fistulas, a healing rate of almost 100% can be achieved. Postoperative incontinence rates are described in the literature as relatively low, but this is still a sequela to be taken seriously. In all cases the incontinence rate rises with the amount of sphincter that is divided. Extensive division should always be avoided (evidence level: 2b; recommendation grade: B; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Seton drainage

Placement of a seton drain is another frequently employed technique in anal fistula surgery. The material used is either a strong braided non-resorbable suture or a plastic (vessel-loop etc.) suture thread. Three different techniques are in use:

Drainage seton (loose seton)

The aim of this technique is long-term drainage of the abscess cavity. This helps to prevent premature closure of the external fistula opening. The thread is removed later to allow spontaneous healing of the fistula. Healing rates in the retrospective observational studies identified vary between 33% and 100%. Impaired continence is reported in 0 to 62% of cases (12, 17, e19e22). These data are due to the fact that interventions undertaken in addition to placement of the seton are not always clearly defined. To date, no randomized studies exist on this subject.

Definitive healing of cryptoglandular anal fistulas, even in the long term by leaving a loose seton in place, can be the goal only in extremely rare cases. Usually, further intervention is required.

Fibrosing seton

Placement of a fibrosing seton usually occurs either primarily or secondarily in the setting of an acute or persistent inflammation.

The aim is to fibrose the fistula tract before further surgical interventions. Most often described in the literature is secondary lay open of remaining fistula. The observational studies identified in the literature search report healing rates of nearly 100% (e12, e23e25). However, this is associated with a high rate of impaired continence. Overall, the data in the literature vary between 0 and 70%.

In Germany, the fibrosing seton is used mainly in high fistulas before definitive reconstruction surgery. Whether the use of the seton promotes success of a reconstructive procedure is not clear.

Cutting seton

The aim of the cutting seton is successive division of the parts of the sphincter enclosed by the fistula tract once the inflamed area has been cored out. The seton may be made of various materials. Either it is stretchable (usually rubber) and will gradually cut through the tissue, or repeated tightening will be required. So-called chemical or medicated setons are a particular case; the principle is loose placement of a thread (ksharasootra), as used in ayurvedic therapy. This thread must be changed every week. The aim of treatment is spontaneous loss of the thread after chemical division of the fistular tissue (17).

Thirty-five observational studies were identified, most of them retrospective, which showed a mixed patient group including almost all types of fistula. Healing rates were reported between 80% and 100% (e13, e15, e21, e26e31). Reported rates of impaired continence were between 0 and 92%.

Recent reviews (18, e32) point to an unacceptably high incontinence rate after use of the cutting seton. In view of the current literature, the recommendation for this method as seen in other guidelines (12, 13) should not be continued.

In the authors’ opinion, the most important function of seton drainage is in preparation for subsequent definitive treatment of high anal fistulas demonstrated during abscess drainage (evidence level: 2a; recommendation grade: B; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Closure by surgical reconstruction

The aim of the various procedures is excision of the fistula and the cryptoglandular focus of infection with closure of the inner fistula cavity. Five different techniques are used:

Direct suture without advancement flap

In some studies the internal fistula cavity was not covered up after direct suturing of the sphincter muscle; reported healing rates were between 56% and 100% (e33, e34).

Mucosal/submucosal advancement flap

Alternatively, the sphincter sutures can be protected by being covered with an advancement flap. This flap can be formed from mucosa, submucosa and superficial parts of the internal muscle (mucosal/submucosal flap. The 30 studies identified showed healing rates between 12% and 100% (15, e34e45).

Rectal advancement flap

Alternatively, a rectal full thickness advancement flap may be used to cover the sutures. The results of the 17 studies identified are largely similar to those using the mucosal/submucosal flap, with healing rates between 33% and 100% and incontinence rates between 0 and 71% (19, e34, e39, e46e49). Four randomized studies have been published (19, e48e50).

A comparison between rectal full thickness advancement flap and fistula excision with primary reconstruction of the sphincter showed similar results in terms of healing and continence. Two other studies which randomized patients to receive either rectal advancement flap or an anal fistula plug showed significantly higher healing rates for the advancement flap but at the same time a higher risk of impaired continence.

Anodermal advancement flap

Another option to cover the inner fistula cavity is an anodermal or anoderm flap. This uses an advancement flap made of anodermal tissue. The anodermal flap can be especially advantageous in patients with a narrow anal canal (e.g., scar tissue from previous operations) that might prevent complete exploration and proximal flap formation. Healing rates in the 10 observational studies identified vary between 46% and 95%, while impaired continence rates range from 0 to 30% (e34, e51e54).

Fistula excision with direct sphincter reconstruction

In fistula excision with primary reconstruction of the sphincter muscle, after complete excision of the fistula and its associated inflammatory tissue, primary readaptation of the divided sphincter apparatus is carried out. The eight studies identified mostly treated high fistulas. Healing rates between 54% and 97% were reported; rates of impaired continence were noted to be 4% to 32% (e55e58). Especially in patients with high fistulas, wound dehiscence after division and reconstruction is associated with a high risk of incontinence. Overall the data for this technique are still relatively few and the role of reconstruction of even small sphincter defects is at present unclear.

To sum up, surgical reconstruction is an established technique with healing rates between 60% and 80%, and there is no meaningful difference between the various procedures. Reported rates of impaired continence vary, and the risk of impaired continence must be explained to the patient before informed consent to surgery can be given (evidence level: 1b; recommendation grade: A; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Biomaterials

Fibrin glue

After curettage of the fistula tract, the tract is filled with fibrin glue. Results in the literature show healing rates that vary widely between 0 and 100%. Only eight studies give information about continence and report having observed no impairment. The majority of these studies are personal case series involving inhomogeneous patients with a wide variety of fistula types (e31, e59e65).

The three review articles identified in the literature search (e66e68) confirm the great heterogeneity of the studies, especially since the good results reported in the earlier studies could not be reproduced in the more recent ones. In the view of the guideline working group, therefore, the use of fibrin glue should be reserved for special cases (evidence level: 1b; recommendation grade: B; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Anal fistula plug

The anal fistula plug is a biomedical product made of porcine small-intestinal submucosa. Unlike the “conventional” procedures, with this technique the inflammatory tissue is not excised, but merely occluded with the cone-shaped plug, which acts as a matrix for the body’s own tissue to grow into.

Some authors combine plugging with closing of the internal fistula cavity using an advancement flap. The published observational studies show healing rates between 14% and 93%. Most of them did not investigate continence impairment. Only three studies report unchanged continence (19, 20, e69e75).

The two randomized studies that compared plugging with surgical closure found markedly lower healing rates with plugging. One study (19) was stopped early because of an unacceptably high rate of recurrence. It appears to be important that the fistula tract is long enough (20).

One review (21) found success rates to vary between 24% and 92%. The rate of recurrent abscess after fistula plugging was 4% to 29%, and the frequency of plug loss was 4% to 41%. A notable feature is the low morbidity of the procedure. Any effect of plugging on continence is expected to be negligible.

To sum up, plugging has added a new option for the treatment of high anal fistula (evidence level: 1b; recommendation grade: B; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Other techniques

A variety of other techniques have been described in the literature only in the form of case reports from individual working groups: radiofrequency ablation, stapling, autologous stem cells, collagen injection, BioLIFT, LIFT (ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract) (evidence level: 5; recommendation grade: 0; consensus strength: consensus).

Perioperative management

Postoperative care after anal surgery is unproblematic. The external wound heals by secondary intention and should be regularly cleaned by showering.

In anal fistulotomy or seton drainage, no special bowel preparation or postoperative treatment is required. Whether preoperative bowel cleansing and/or delaying the passing of stool after the operation influences healing rates after reconstructive surgery, or whether antibiotic therapy does, is currently unclear despite recent studies (22, e76). Smoking appears to have a negative influence on results (23, e54). Stoma placement is indicated only in exceptional cases (evidence level: 5; recommendation grade: 0; consensus strength: consensus).

Complications

Perioperative complications

Complications after anal fistula interventions are basically no different from those after other anal interventions (the main ones are urinary retention and postoperative bleeding). With surgical fistula reconstruction, rates of local infection are between 5% and 20% (e77, e78). In most cases, wound dehiscence is associated with persistence of the fistula.

Impaired continence after anal fistula operations

Impairment of continence is a frequent complication after anal fistula operations. The causes are usually multifactorial, with sphincter lesions to the fore. The risk of postoperative continence impairment rises with the amount of sphincter that has been divided. The degree of impairment varies greatly and depends to a large extent on pre-existing injury. Its effect on the patient also relates to subjective experience.

In the literature, impaired continence rates are reported as 10% in low fistulas and 50% in high fistulas (24, e78).

Against this background, it is important to give the patient comprehensive information. The sphincter apparatus must be spared as much as possible (evidence level: 1c; recommendation grade: A; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Malignant transformation

It is rare, but possible, for a malignant tumor to develop in a chronic anal fistula. The literature provides various case reports of advanced tumor stages (25). For this reason, histological analysis of the resected specimen is recommended (evidence level: 5; recommendation grade: 0; consensus strength: strong consensus).

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Ommer has received honoraria from the DGAV for developing four guidelines on the subject of anal fistulas. He has also had travel and accommodation expenses reimbursed by Gore and by Johnson & Johnson. He has received fees from Kade and from MSD for lectures given at continuing medical education events.

Professor Herold has received financial support for conferences from the Falk Foundation, Johnson & Johnson, Prostrakan, MSD, and Aesculap. Other projects received third-party support from Cook, Gore, SLA-Pharma, the Falk Foundation, and Kreussler.

Dr. Berg has had attendance fees at conferences and travel and accommodation expenses reimbursed by Johnson & Johnson. He has received fees from the Falk Foundation and Johnson & Johnson for the preparation of continuing medical education events.

Professor Fürst has received support for travel to conferences from Johnson & Johnson and from Braun-Aesculap, and fees for carrying out commissioned clinical studies from Bayern Innovativ GmbH.

Professor Sailer has received fees for continuing medical education events from Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, the Falk Foundation, and Hitachi Medical.

Professor Schiedeck has had attendance fees and travel and accommodation expenses reimbursed, and fees for preparation of scientific continuing education events, from Aesculap Akademie GmbH, Falk Foundation e.V., Johnson & Johnson, and Medical GmbH. He has received fees for carrying out commissioned clinical studies from Solesta and Medela.

Manuscript received on 12 July 2011, revised version accepted on 21 July 2011.

Translated from the original German by Kersti Wagstaff MA.

Corresponding author
Dr. med. Andreas Ommer

End- und Dickdarmpraxis Essen

Rüttenscheider Str. 66

45130 Essen, Germany

aommer@online.de

@For eReferences please refer to:
www.aerzteblatt-international.de/ref4211

1.
Zanotti C, Martinez-Puente C, Pascual I, et al.: An assessment of the incidence of fistula-in-ano in four countries of the European Union. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22: 1459–62. CrossRef MEDLINE
2.
Sainio P: Fistula-in-ano in a defined population. Incidence and epidemiological aspects. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1984; 73: 219–24. MEDLINE
3.
Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD: A classification of fistula-in-ano. Br J Surg 1976; 63: 1–12. CrossRef MEDLINE
4.
Becker A, Koltun L, Sayfan J: Simple clinical examination predicts complexity of perianal fistula. Colorectal Dis 2006; 8: 601–4. CrossRef MEDLINE
5.
Schwartz DA, Wiersema MJ, Dudiak KM, et al.: A comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and exam under anesthesia for evaluation of Crohn's perianal fistulas. Gastroenterology 2001; 121: 1064–72. CrossRef MEDLINE
6.
Bussen D, Sailer M, Wening S, Fuchs KH, Thiede A: Wertigkeit der analen Endosonographie in der Diagnostik anorektaler Fisteln. Zentralbl Chir 2004; 129: 404–7. CrossRef MEDLINE
7.
Sahni VA, Ahmad R, Burling D: Which method is best for imaging of perianal fistula? Abdom Imaging 2008; 33: 26–30. CrossRef MEDLINE
8.
Malik AI, Nelson RL: Surgical management of anal fistulae: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10: 420–30. CrossRef MEDLINE
9.
Soltani A, Kaiser AM: Endorectal advancement flap for cryptoglandular or Crohn's fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 486–95. CrossRef MEDLINE
10.
Rizzo JA, Naig AL, Johnson EK: Anorectal abscess and fistula-in-ano: evidence-based management. Surg Clin North Am 2010; 90: 45–68. CrossRef MEDLINE
11.
Jacob TJ, Keighley MR, Perakath B: Surgical intervention for chronic anorectal fistula (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010; CD006319. MEDLINE
12.
Whiteford MH, Kilkenny J, 3rd, Hyman N, et al.: Practice parameters for the treatment of perianal abscess and fistula-in-ano (re-vised). Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1337–42. CrossRef MEDLINE
13.
Williams JG, Farrands PA, Williams AB, et al.: The treatment of anal fistula: ACPGBI position statement. Colorectal Dis 2007; 9 Suppl 4: 18–50. CrossRef MEDLINE
14.
Stelzner F, Dietl H, Hahne H: Ergebnisse bei Radikaloperationen von 143 Analfisteln (Kritik der einzeitigen Sphinktertrennung bei ein- oder mehrzeitigen Fisteloperationen). Chirurg 1956; 27: 158–62. MEDLINE
15.
van der Hagen SJ, Baeten CG, Soeters PB, van Gemert WG: Long-term outcome following mucosal advancement flap for high perianal fistulas and fistulotomy for low perianal fistulas: recurrent perianal fistulas: failure of treatment or recurrent patient disease? Int J Colorectal Dis 2006; 21: 784–90. CrossRef MEDLINE
16.
Bokhari S, Lindsey I: Incontinence following sphincter division for treatment of anal fistula. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e135–9. MEDLINE
17.
Mohite JD, Gawai RS, Rohondia OS, Bapat RD: Ksharsootra (medicated seton) treatment for fistula-in-ano. Indian J Gastroenterol 1997; 16: 96–7. MEDLINE
18.
Ritchie RD, Sackier JM, Hodde JP: Incontinence rates after cutting seton treatment for anal fistula. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11: 564–71. CrossRef MEDLINE
19.
Ortiz H, Marzo J, Ciga MA, et al.: Randomized clinical trial of anal fistula plug versus endorectal advancement flap for the treatment of high cryptoglandular fistula in ano. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 608–12. CrossRef MEDLINE
20.
McGee MF, Champagne BJ, Stulberg JJ, et al.: Tract length predicts successful closure with anal fistula plug in cryptoglandular fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 1116–20. CrossRef MEDLINE
21.
Garg P, Song J, Bhatia A, Kalia H, Menon GR: The efficacy of anal fistula plug in fistula-in-ano: A systematic review. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 965–70. CrossRef MEDLINE
22.
Joos AK, Palma P, Jonescheit JO, Hasenberg T, Herold A: Enteral vs parenteral nutrition in reconstructive anal surgery—a prospective-randomized trial. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10: 605–9. CrossRef MEDLINE
23.
Zimmerman DD, Gosselink MP, Mitalas LE, et al.: Smoking impairs rectal mucosal bloodflow—a pilot study: possible implica-
tions for transanal advancement flap repair. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48: 1228–32. CrossRef MEDLINE
24.
Ommer A, Wenger FA, Rolfs T, Walz MK: Continence disorders after anal surgery – a relevant problem? Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 1023–31. CrossRef MEDLINE
25.
Gaertner WB, Hagerman GF, Finne CO, et al.: Fistula-associated anal adenocarcinoma: good results with aggressive therapy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1061–7. CrossRef MEDLINE
e1.
e2.
Schmiegel W, Pox C, Reinacher-Schick A, et al.: S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom. Z Gastroenterol 2008; 46: 1–73.
e3.
Seow-Choen F, Nicholls RJ: Anal fistula. Br J Surg 1992; 79: 197–205. MEDLINE
e4.
Roig JV, Garcia-Armengol J, Jordan JC, et al.: Fistulectomy and sphincteric reconstruction for complex cryptoglandular fistulas. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e145–52. MEDLINE
e5.
Gonzalez-Ruiz C, Kaiser AM, Vukasin P, Beart RW, Jr., Ortega AE: Intraoperative physical diagnosis in the management of anal fistula. Am Surg 2006; 72: 11–5. MEDLINE
e6.
Zbar AP, Armitage NC: Complex perirectal sepsis: clinical classification and imaging. Tech Coloproctol 2006; 10: 83–93. CrossRef MEDLINE
e7.
Weisman RI, Orsay CP, Pearl RK, Abcarian H: The role of fistulo graphy in fistula-in-ano. Report of five cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34: 181–4. MEDLINE
e8.
Lengyel AJ, Hurst NG, Williams JG: Pre-operative assessment of anal fistulas using endoanal ultrasound. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4: 436–40. CrossRef MEDLINE
e9.
Maor Y, Chowers Y, Koller M, et al.: Endosonographic evaluation of perianal fistulas and abscesses: comparison of two instruments and assessment of the role of hydrogen peroxide injection. J Clin Ultrasound 2005; 33: 226–32. MEDLINE
e10.
Ratto C, Grillo E, Parello A, Costamagna G, Doglietto GB: Endoanal ultrasound-guided surgery for anal fistula. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 722–8. MEDLINE
e11.
Schaefer O, Lohrmann C, Langer M: Assessment of anal fistulas with high-resolution subtraction MR-fistulography: comparison with surgical findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19: 91–8. CrossRef MEDLINE
e12.
Parks AG, Stitz RW: The treatment of high fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 1976; 19: 487–99. MEDLINE
e13.
van Tets WF, Kuijpers HC: Continence disorders after anal fistulotomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37: 1194–7. MEDLINE
e14.
Garcia-Aguilar J, Belmonte C, Wong WD, Goldberg SM, Madoff RD: Anal fistula surgery. Factors associated with recurrence and incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1996; 39: 723–9. MEDLINE
e15.
Mylonakis E, Katsios C, Godevenos D, Nousias B, Kappas AM: Quality of life of patients after surgical treatment of anal fistula; the role of anal manometry. Colorectal Dis 2001; 3: 417–21. MEDLINE
e16.
Westerterp M, Volkers NA, Poolman RW, van Tets WF: Anal fistulotomy between Skylla and Charybdis. Colorectal Dis 2003; 5: 549–51. MEDLINE
e17.
van Koperen PJ, Wind J, Bemelman WA, et al.: Long-term functional outcome and risk factors for recurrence after surgical treatment for low and high perianal fistulas of cryptoglandular origin. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1475–81. MEDLINE
e18.
Toyonaga T, Matsushima M, Tanaka Y, et al.: Non-sphincter splitting fistulectomy vs conventional fistulotomy for high trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano: a prospective functional and manometric study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22: 1097–102. MEDLINE
e19.
Williams JG, MacLeod CA, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM: Seton treatment of high anal fistulae. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 1159–61. MEDLINE
e20.
Graf W, Pahlman L, Ejerblad S: Functional results after seton treatment of high transsphincteric anal fistulas. Eur J Surg 1995; 161: 289–91. MEDLINE
e21.
Garcia-Aguilar J, Belmonte C, Wong DW, Goldberg SM, Madoff RD: Cutting seton versus two-stage seton fistulotomy in the surgical management of high anal fistula. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 243–5. MEDLINE
e22.
Choi D, Sung Kim H, Seo HI, Oh N: Patient-performed seton irrigation for the treatment of deep horseshoe fistula. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 812–6. MEDLINE
e23.
Pearl RK, Andrews JR, Orsay CP, et al.: Role of the seton in the management of anorectal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 573–7; discussion 577–9. MEDLINE
e24.
Van Tets WF, Kuijpers JH: Seton treatment of perianal fistula with high anal or rectal opening. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 895–7. CrossRef MEDLINE
e25.
Galis-Rozen E, Tulchinsky H, Rosen A, et al.: Long-term outcome of loose seton for complex anal fistula: a two-centre study of patients with and without Crohn's disease. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 358–62. MEDLINE
e26.
Deshpande PJ, Sharma KR: Successful non-operative treatment of high rectal fistula. Am J Proctol 1976; 27: 39–47. MEDLINE
e27.
Hämäläinen KP, Sainio AP: Cutting seton for anal fistulas: high risk of minor control defects. Dis Colon Rectum 1997; 40: 1443–6; discussion 1447. CrossRef MEDLINE
e28.
Dziki A, Bartos M: Seton treatment of anal fistula: experience with a new modification. Eur J Surg 1998; 164: 543–8. MEDLINE
e29.
Zbar AP, Ramesh J, Beer-Gabel M, Salazar R, Pescatori M: Conventional cutting vs. internal anal sphincter-preserving seton for high trans-sphincteric fistula: a prospective randomized manometric and clinical trial. Tech Coloproctol 2003; 7: 89–94. CrossRef MEDLINE
e30.
Pescatori M, Ayabaca S, Caputo D: Can anal manometry predict anal incontinence after fistulectomy in males? Colorectal Dis 2004; 6: 97–102. MEDLINE
e31.
Altomare DF, Greco VJ, Tricomi N, et al.: Seton or glue for trans-sphincteric anal fistulae. A prospective randomised cross-over clinical trial. Colorectal Dis 2009; published online. MEDLINE
e32.
Vial M, Pares D, Pera M, Grande L: Faecal incontinence after seton treatment for anal fistulae with and without surgical division of internal anal sphincter: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 172–8. CrossRef MEDLINE
e33.
Ackermann C, Tondelli P, Herzog U: Sphinkterschonende Operation der transsphinkteren Analfistel. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1994; 124: 1253–6. MEDLINE
e34.
Köhler A, Risse-Schaaf A, Athanasiadis S: Treatment for horseshoe fistulas-in-ano with primary closure of the internal fistula opening: a clinical and manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 1874–82. CrossRef MEDLINE
e35.
Wedell J, Meier zu Eissen P, Banzhaf G, Kleine L: Sliding flap advancement for the treatment of high level fistulae. Br J Surg 1987; 74: 390–1. MEDLINE
e36.
Abcarian H, Dodi G, Girona J, et al.: Fistula-in-ano. Int J Colorectal Dis 1987; 2: 51–71. MEDLINE
e37.
Kodner IJ, Mazor A, Shemesh EI, et al.: Endorectal advancement flap repair of rectovaginal and other complicated anorectal fistulas. Surgery 1993; 114: 682–9; discussion 689–90. MEDLINE
e38.
Athanasiadis S, Köhler A, Nafe M: Treatment of high anal fistulae by primary occlusion of the internal ostium, drainage of the intersphincteric space, and mucosal advancement flap. Int J Colorectal Dis 1994; 9: 153–7. CrossRef MEDLINE
e39.
Athanasiadis S, Nafe M, Köhler A: Transanaler rektaler Verschiebelappen (rectal advancement flap) versus Mucosaflap mit Internusnaht im Management komplizierter Fisteln des Anorectums. Langenbecks Arch Chir 1995; 380: 31–6. MEDLINE
e40.
Schouten WR, Zimmerman DD, Briel JW: Transanal advancement flap repair of transsphincteric fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42: 1419–22; discussion 1422–3. MEDLINE
e41.
Zmora O, Mizrahi N, Rotholtz N, et al.: Fibrin glue sealing in the treatment of perineal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 584–9. MEDLINE
e42.
Mitalas LE, Gosselink MP, Zimmerman DD, Schouten WR: Repeat transanal advancement flap repair: impact on the overall healing rate of high transsphincteric fistulas and on fecal continence. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 1508–11. CrossRef MEDLINE
e43.
Abbas MA, Lemus-Rangel R, Hamadani A: Long-term outcome of endorectal advancement flap for complex anorectal fistulae. Am Surg 2008; 74: 921–4. MEDLINE
e44.
Mitalas LE, Gosselink MP, Oom DM, Zimmerman DD, Schouten WR: Required length of follow-up after transanal advancement flap repair of high transsphincteric fistulas. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11: 726–8. MEDLINE
e45.
Zbar AP: Experience with staged mucosal advancement anoplasty for high trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano. West Indian Med J 2010; 56: 446–50. MEDLINE
e46.
Gustafsson UM, Graf W: Excision of anal fistula with closure of the internal opening: functional and manometric results. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45: 1672–8. MEDLINE
e47.
Joy HA, Williams JG: The outcome of surgery for complex anal fistula. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4: 254–61. CrossRef MEDLINE
e48.
Gustafsson UM, Graf W: Randomized clinical trial of local gentamicin-collagen treatment in advancement flap repair for anal fistula. Br J Surg 2006; 93: 1202–7. CrossRef MEDLINE
e49.
Christoforidis D, Pieh MC, Madoff RD, Mellgren AF: Treatment of transsphincteric anal fistulas by endorectal advancement flap or collagen fistula plug: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 18–22. CrossRef MEDLINE
e50.
Perez F, Arroyo A, Serrano P, et al.: Randomized clinical and manometric study of advancement flap versus fistulotomy with sphincter reconstruction in the management of complex fistula-in-ano. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 34–40. MEDLINE
e51.
Köhler A, Athanasiadis S: Die anodermale Verschiebelappenplastik als alternative Behandlungsmethode zu den endorectalen Verschlußtechniken bei der Therapie hoher Analfisteln. Eine prospektive Studie bei 31 Patienten. Chirurg 1996; 67: 1244–50. CrossRef MEDLINE
e52.
Amin SN, Tierney GM, Lund JN, Armitage NC: V-Y advancement flap for treatment of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 540–3. MEDLINE
e53.
Ho KS, Ho YH: Controlled, randomized trial of island flap anoplasty for treatment of trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano: early results. Tech Coloproctol 2005; 9: 166–8. CrossRef MEDLINE
e54.
Ellis CN, Clark S: Effect of tobacco smoking on advancement flap repair of complex anal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 459–63. CrossRef MEDLINE
e55.
Gemsenjager E: Results with a new therapy concept in anal fistula: suture of the anal sphincter. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1996; 126: 2021–5. MEDLINE
e56.
Perez F, Arroyo A, Serrano P, et al.: Fistulotomy with primary sphincter reconstruction in the management of complex fistula-in-ano: prospective study of clinical and manometric results. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 200: 897–903. MEDLINE
e57.
Jordan J, Roig JV, Garcia-Armengol J, et al.: Risk factors for recurrence and incontinence after anal fistula surgery. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 254–60. MEDLINE
e58.
Kraemer M, Picke D: Fistelspaltung und primäre Sphinkterrekonstruktion zur Behandlung von Analfisteln. Coloproctology 2011; 33: 104–8. CrossRef
e59.
Cintron JR, Park JJ, Orsay CP, et al.: Repair of fistulas-in-ano using fibrin adhesive: long-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43: 944–9; discussion 949–50. MEDLINE
e60.
Park JJ, Cintron JR, Orsay CP, et al.: Repair of chronic anorectal fistulae using commercial fibrin sealant. Arch Surg 2000, 135: 166–9. MEDLINE
e61.
Lindsey I, Smilgin-Humphreys MM, Cunningham C, Mortensen NJ, George BD: A randomized, controlled trial of fibrin glue vs. conventional treatment for anal fistula. Dis Colon Rectum 2002; 45: 1608–15. MEDLINE
e62.
Buchanan GN, Bartram CI, Phillips RK, et al.: Efficacy of fibrin sealant in the management of complex anal fistula: a prospective trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 1167–74. MEDLINE
e63.
Jurczak F, Laridon JY, Raffaitin P, Pousset JP: Biological fibrin used in anal fistulas: 31 patients. Ann Chir 2004; 129: 286–9. MEDLINE
e64.
Ellis CN, Clark S: Fibrin glue as an adjunct to flap repair of anal fistulas: a randomized, controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 1736–40. CrossRef MEDLINE
e65.
van Koperen PJ, Wind J, Bemelman WA, Slors JFM: Fibrin glue and transanal rectal advancement flap for high transshincteric perianal fistulas; is there any advantage? Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 697–701. MEDLINE
e66.
Hammond TM, Grahn MF, Lunniss PJ: Fibrin glue in the management of anal fistulae. Colorectal Dis 2004; 6: 308–19. MEDLINE
e67.
Swinscoe MT, Ventakasubramaniam AK, Jayne DG: Fibrin glue for fistula-in-ano: the evidence reviewed. Tech Coloproctol 2005; 9: 89–94. MEDLINE
e68.
Cirocchi R, Farinella E, La Mura F, et al.: Fibrin glue in the treatment of anal fistula: a systematic review. Ann Surg Innov Res 2009; 3: 12. MEDLINE
e69.
Johnson EK, Gaw JU, Armstrong DN: Efficacy of anal fistula plug vs. fibrin glue in closure of anorectal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 371–6. CrossRef MEDLINE
e70.
Christoforidis D, Etzioni DA, Goldberg SM, Madoff RD, Mellgren A: Treatment of complex anal fistulas with the collagen fistula plug. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1482–7. MEDLINE
e71.
Schwandner O, Stadler F, Dietl O, Wirsching RP, Fuerst A: Initial experience on efficacy in closure of cryptoglandular and Crohn's transsphincteric fistulas by the use of the anal fistula plug. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 319–24. MEDLINE
e72.
Song WL, Wang ZJ, Zheng Y, Yang XQ, Peng YP: An anorectal fistula treatment with acellular extracellular matrix: a new technique. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 4791–4. MEDLINE
e73.
Garg P: To determine the efficacy of anal fistula plug in the treatment of high fistula-in-ano: an initial experience. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11: 588–91. CrossRef MEDLINE
e74.
Ellis CN, Rostas JW, Greiner FG: Long-term outcomes with the use of bioprosthetic plugs for the management of complex anal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 798–802. CrossRef MEDLINE
e75.
Lenisa L, Espin-Basany E, Rusconi A, et al.: Anal fistula plug is a valid alternative option for the treatment of complex anal fistula in the long term. Int J Colorectal Dis 2010; 25: 1487–93. MEDLINE
e76.
Nessim A, Wexner SD, Agachan F, et al.: Is bowel confinement necessary after anorectal reconstructive surgery? A prospective, randomized, surgeon-blinded trial. Dis Colon Rectum 1999; 42: 16–23. MEDLINE
e77.
Parkash S, Lakshmiratan V, Gajendran V: Fistula-in-ano: treatment by fistulectomy, primary closure and reconstitution. Aust N Z J Surg 1985, 55: 23–7. MEDLINE
e78.
Roig JV, Jordan J, Garcia-Armengol J, Esclapez P, Solana A: Changes in anorectal morphologic and functional parameters after fistula-in-ano surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1462–9. MEDLINE