Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 197–200 | Cite as

Mucosal advancement flap for recurrent complex anal fistula: a repeatable procedure

  • Michele PodettaEmail author
  • Cosimo Riccardo Scarpa
  • Guillaume Zufferey
  • Karel Skala
  • Frederic Ris
  • Bruno Roche
  • Nicolas Christian Buchs
Short Communication

Abstract

Purpose

Mucosal advancement flap (MAF) is the best option for complex anal fistula (AF) treatment. Recurrence is not rare and the best surgical option for his handling is a challenge considering the incontinence risk and the healing rate. We aimed to determine the feasibility and outcomes of a second MAF for recurrent complex AF previously treated with mucosal advancement flap.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 32 patients undergoing two or more MAF for recurrent AF in a larger cohort of 121 consecutive cases of MAF operated by the same senior colorectal surgeon. Only complex AF of cryptoglandular origin was enrolled. A long-term follow-up was performed collecting clinical and functional data.

Results

Among 121 patients (group A) treated with mucosal advancement flap, 32 (26.4%) (group B) recurred with a complex AF requiring a second mucosal advancement flap procedure. Success rate of group B is 78.1%. Six patients of group B recurred a second time, another MAF was performed with healing in all cases. Complication rate (Clavien Dindo 3b) of group B is 9.4% compared to 8.3% of group A. A slight continence deficit (Miller score 1, 2, and 4) was detected after the first MAF in 3 patients. The Miller score for these patients did not change after the subsequent MAF.

Conclusions

MAF is effective for treatment of complex recurrent AF. A pre-existing MAF procedure does not worsen the healing rate of the second flap. The rate of surgical complications is similar with those reported in the literature for MAFs.

Keywords

Anal fistula Mucosal advancement flap Fistula repair Cryptoglandular fistula Surgery for anal fistula 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Steele SR, Kumar R, Feingold DL (2011) Practice parameters for the management of perianal abscess and fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 54(12):1465–1474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uribe N, Millán M, Minguez M (2007) Clinical and manometric results of endorectal advancement flaps for complex anal fistula. Int J Color Dis 22(3):259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schouten WR, Zimmerman DD, Briel (1999) Transanal advancement flap repair of transsphincteric fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum 42(11):1419–1422 discussion 1422-3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ortíz H, Marzo J (2000) Endorectal flap advancement repair and fistulectomy for high trans-sphincteric and suprasphincteric fistulas. Br J Surg 87(12):1680–1683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uribe N, Balciscueta Z, Mínguez M, Martín MC, López M, Mora F, Primo V (2015) “Core out” or “curettage” in rectal advancement flap for cryptoglandular anal fistula. Int J Color Dis 30(5):613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wedell J, Meier zu Eissen P et al (1987) Sliding flap advancement for the treatment of high level fistulae. Br J Surg 74(5):390–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mizrahi N, Wexner SD, Zmora O, Silva GD, Efron J, Weiss EG, Vernava AM III, Nogueras JJ (2002) Endorectal advancement flap: are there predictors of failure? Dis Colon Rectum 45(12):1616–1621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ommer A, Wenger FA, Rolfs T, Walz MK (2008) Continence disorders after anal surgery--a relevant problem? Int J Color Dis 23(11):1023–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitalas LE, Gosselink MP, Zimmerman DD et al (2007) Repeat transanal advancement flap repair: impact on the overall healing rate of high transsphincteric fistulas and on fecal continence. Dis Colon Rectum 50(10):1508–1511CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller R, Bartolo DC, Locke-Edmunds JC et al (1988) Prospective study of conservative and operative treatment for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 75(2):101–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christoforidis D, Pieh MC, Madoff RD, Mellgren AF (2009) Treatment of transsphincteric anal fistulas by endorectal advancement flap or collagen fistula plug: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 52(1):18–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher OM, Raptis DA, Vetter D, Novak A, Dindo D, Hahnloser D, Clavien PA, Nocito A (2015) An outcome and cost analysis of anal fistula plug insertion vs endorectal advancement flap for complex anal fistulae. Color Dis 17(7):619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Proctology Unit, Service of Visceral SurgeryGeneva University Hospitals and Medical SchoolGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Département de Chirurgie, Division de Chirurgie BariatriqueHôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Université de MontréalQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations