Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May;36(5):1162-1167.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1480-9.

Evolution of treatment of fistula in ano

Affiliations

Evolution of treatment of fistula in ano

J Blumetti et al. World J Surg. 2012 May.

Abstract

Background: Fistula-in-ano is a common medical problem affecting thousands of patients annually. In the past, the options for treatment of fistula-in-ano were limited to fistulotomy and/or seton placement. Current treatment options also include muscle-sparing techniques such as a dermal island flap, endorectal advancement flap, fibrin sealent injection, anal fistula plug, and most recently ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (procedure). This study seeks to evaluate types and time trends for treatment of fistula-in-ano.

Methods: A retrospective review from 1975 to 2009 was performed. Data were collected and sorted into 5-year increments for type and time trends of treatment. Fistulotomy and partial fistulotomy were grouped as cutting procedures. Seton placement, fibrin sealant, dermal flap, endorectal flap, and fistula plug were grouped as noncutting procedures. Statistical analysis was performed for each time period to determine trends.

Results: With institutional review board approval, the records of 2,267 fistula operations available for analysis were included. Most of the patients were men (74 vs. 26%). Cutting procedures comprised 66.6% (n = 1510) of all procedures. Noncutting procedures were utilized in 33.4% (n = 757), including Seton placement alone 370 (16.3%), fibrin sealant 168 (7.4%), dermal or endorectal flap 147 (6.5%), and fistula plug 72 (3.2%). The distribution of operations grouped in 5-year intervals is as follows: 1975-1979, 78 cutting and one noncutting; 1980-1984, 170 cutting and 10 noncutting; 1985-1989, 54 cutting and five noncutting; 1990-1994, 37 cutting and six noncutting; 1995-1999, 367 cutting and 167 noncutting; 2000-2004, 514 cutting and 283 noncutting; 2005-2009, 290 cutting and 285 noncutting. The percentage of cutting and noncutting procedures significantly differed over time, with cutting procedures decreasing and noncutting procedures increasing proportionally (χ(2) linear-by-linear association, p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Fistula-in-ano remains a common complex disease process. Its treatment has evolved to include a variety of noncutting techniques in addition to traditional fistulotomy. With the advent of more sphincter-sparing techniques, the number of patients undergoing fistulotomy should continue to decrease over time. Surgeons should become familiar with various surgical techniques so the treatment can be tailored to the patient.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Ramanujam PS, Prasad ML, Abcarian H (1983) The role of seton in fistulotomy of the anus. Surg Gynecol Obstet 157:419–422 - PubMed
    1. Read DR, Abcarian H (1979) A prospective survey of 474 patients with anorectal abscess. Dis Colon Rectum 22:566–568 - PubMed - DOI
    1. Ramanujam PS, Prasad ML, Abcarian H et al (1984) Perianal abscess and fistula: a study of 1023 patients. Dis Col Rectum 27:593–597 - DOI
    1. Aguilar PS, Plasencia G, Hardy TG et al (1985) Mucosal advancement in the treatment of anal fistula. Dis Col Rectum 28:496–498 - DOI
    1. Schouten WR, Zimmerman DDE, Briel JW (1999) Transanal advancement flap repair of transsphincteric fistulas. Dis Col Rectum 42:1419–1422 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources