Open versus closed lateral internal anal sphincterotomy in the management of chronic anal fissures: A prospective randomized study

Close lateral internal sphincterotomy versus open lateral internal sphincterotomy for chronic anal fissure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) has been the gold standard for treating chronic anal fissure (CAF) that persists despite other measures. The authors aim to evaluate the effects of the close method (CLIS) of performing LIS as compared to the open method (OLIS).

Methods

Databases were searched for relevant studies and results were screened to identify eligible articles, and all concerned outcomes were pooled as odd ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% CI in the meta-analysis models using RevMan 5.4.

Results

Pooled data from 16 trials with 1,711 patients with idiopathic CAF showed that the CLIS has significant lower risk of delayed fissure healing [OR: 0.28, 95% CI (0.10, 0.77), P = 0.01], duration of hospital stay [MD: -0.82 with 95% CI (-1.07, -0.57), P < 0.00001] and postoperative visual analogue pain score (VAPS) at 24 h [MD: -0.30 with 95% CI (-0.39, -0.21), P < 0.00001]. Also, the risk of overall complications [OR: 0.33 with 95% CI (0.19, 0.55), P < 0.0001], incontinence [OR: 0.28 with 95% CI (0.20, 0.38), P < 0.00001], and postoperative pain [OR: 0.56 with 95% CI (0.35, 0.91), P = 0.02] was significantly lower with CLIS.

Conclusion

CLIS is a safer option than OLIS for treating anal fissure. The risk of delayed fissure healing, incontinence, post-op pain and overall complication was significantly lower. However, the risk of surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding and recurrence did not differ. Future research with more prolonged follow-up is necessary to document recurrence reliably.

Comparing closed versus open lateral internal sphincterotomy for management of chronic anal fissure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials

Chronic anal fissure is one of the most common benign anorectal health conditions, causing significant morbidity, quality of life, and economic loss. Eight randomized controlled trials with a total population size of 1035 were eligible for analysis. Seven studies included both males and female, while one only included females. The majority of randomized controlled trials involved female dominance [54.9% (43.5-66.3)] and posterior midline location [86.1% (95% CI 81.5-90.8%)]. This meta-analysis of randomised control trials found that overall postoperative healing was 90.2%, recurrent anal fissure was 3.7%, and postoperative incontinence was 8.9% after LIS. Even though there was no statistically significant difference, closed lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) had higher rates of recurrent anal fissure (RR = 1.73 (95% CI 0.86-3.47, p = 0.90, I2 = 0%) and lower rates of postoperative incontinence rate (RR = 0.60 (95% CI 0.37-0.96, p = 0.76, I2-0) as compared with open LIS. We recommended that closed lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is a safe and effective surgical treatment option for chronic anal fissures.

The Italian Unitary Society of Colon-proctology (SIUCP: Società Italiana Unitaria di Colonproctologia) guidelines for the management of anal fissure

INTRODUCTION

The aim of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the Italian Unitary Society of Colon-Proctology (SIUCP: Società Italiana Unitaria di Colon-Proctologia) on the diagnosis and management of anal fissure, with the purpose to guide every physician in the choice of the best treatment option, according with the available literature.

METHODS

A panel of experts was designed and charged by the Board of the SIUCP to develop key-questions on the main topics covering the management of anal fissure and to performe an accurate search on each topic in different databanks, in order to provide evidence-based answers to the questions and to summarize them in statements. All the clinical questions were discussed by the expert panel in different rounds through the Delphi approach and, for each statement, a consensus among the experts was reached. The questions were created according to the PICO criteria, and the statements developed adopting the GRADE methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute anal fissure the medical therapy with dietary and behavioral norms is indicated. In the chronic phase of disease, the conservative treatment with topical 0.3% nifedipine plus 1.5% lidocaine or nitrates may represent the first-line therapy, eventually associated with ointments with film-forming, anti-inflammatory and healing properties such as Propionibacterium extract gel. In case of first-line treatment failure, the surgical strategy (internal sphincterotomy or fissurectomy with flap), may be guided by the clinical findings, eventually supported by endoanal ultrasound and anal manometry.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatments for anal fissure

BACKGROUND

There are multiple treatments for anal fissures. These range from medical treatment to surgical procedures, such as sphincterotomy. The aim of this study was to compare the relative clinical outcomes and effectiveness of interventional treatments for anal fissure.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were identified by means of a PRISMA-compliant systematic review using the Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing treatments for anal fissure. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using BUGSnet package in R. Outcomes of interest were healing (6-8-, 10-16-, and >16-week follow-up), symptom recurrence, pain (measured on a visual analog scale), and fecal or flatus incontinence. PROPSERO Registration: CRD42021229615.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Lateral sphincterotomy remains the treatment with the highest odds of healing compared to botulinum toxin and medical therapy at all follow-up time points. There was no significant difference in healing between botulinum toxin and medical therapy at any time point. Advancement flap showed similar effectiveness compared to lateral sphincterotomy. Medical treatment and botulinum toxin had the highest pain scores at follow-up. Sphincterotomy had the highest odds of fecal and flatus incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Lateral sphincterotomy had the highest rates of healing and should be considered as the definitive treatment after failed initial therapy with botulinum toxin or medical treatment. Botulinum toxin was equally effective compared to medical treatment. Advancement flap shows similar effectiveness compared to lateral sphincterotomy, but more studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Management of Benign Anorectal Disorders

Benign anorectal disorders of structure and function are common in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize the preferred approach to the evaluation and management of defecation disorders, proctalgia syndromes, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal incontinence in adults and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

Anorectal emergencies: WSES-AAST guidelines

Anorectal emergencies comprise a wide variety of diseases that share common symptoms, i.e., anorectal pain or bleeding and might require immediate management. While most of the underlying conditions do not need inpatient management, some of them could be life-threatening and need prompt recognition and treatment. It is well known that an incorrect diagnosis is frequent for anorectal diseases and that a delayed diagnosis is related to an impaired outcome. This paper aims to improve the knowledge and the awareness on this specific topic and to provide a useful tool for every physician dealing with anorectal emergencies.The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the boards of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the WSES-AAST-WJES Consensus Conference on Anorectal Emergencies, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES-AAST panel of experts was reached. We structured our work into seven main topics to cover the entire management of patients with anorectal emergencies and to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

"Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ultra-modified Internal Sphincterotomy vs Closed Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy for Chronic Fissure-in-Ano"

BACKGROUND

Currently, the lateral internal sphincterotomy is the treatment of choice for a chronic anal fissure (CAF). However, the length of the internal sphincter incision varies, due to lack of standardization. Insufficient length increases the risk of recurrence. To compare a new ultra-modified internal sphincterotomy (UMIS) to the closed lateral internal sphincterotomy (CLIS) for treating CAF, based on internal anal sphincter function and postoperative complications. The primary endpoint was continence after UMIS. The secondary outcomes were CAF healing complications, visual analog scale pain scores, and sphincter pressures.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial (block randomization method). 200 patients with CAFs were randomly assigned to receive either UMIS (n = 100) or the closed lateral internal sphincterotomy (CLIS) (n = 100). Follow-up was 2 years. RESULTS: All (100%) patients in both groups showed clinical improvement at 1 month post-surgery. Recurrences were accompanied by deteriorations in Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence scores at 12 months and 2 years (P < .05). The groups showed significant differences in fissure healing rates and pain scores. After 1 and 2 years, incontinence rates were significantly higher, and patient satisfaction scores were significantly lower in the CLIS group than the UMIS group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

UMIS provided a faster healing rate and fewer side effects than the CLIS for treating CAFs. These results might lead to a standardized treatment among surgeons.

S3-Leitlinie: Analfissur

Die Analfissur ist eine der häufigsten Pathologien, welche sich dem Proktologen präsentiert. Entsprechend ist es wichtig, verlässliche Leitlinien dazu zu entwickeln. Die aktuelle Leitlinie wurde anhand eines systematischen Literaturreview von einem interdisziplinären Expertengremium diskutiert und verabschiedet.

Die akute Analfissur, soll auf Grund ihrer hohen Selbstheilungstendenz konservativ behandelt werden. Die Heilung wird am besten durch die Einnahme von Ballaststoff reicher Ernährung und einer medikamentösen Relaxation durch Kalziumkanal-Antagonisten (CCA) unterstützt. Zur Behandlung der chronischen Analfissur (CAF), soll den Patienten eine medikamentöse Behandlung zur „chemischen Sphinkterotomie“ mittels topischer CCA oder Nitraten angeboten werden. Bei Versagen dieser Therapie, kann zur Relaxation des inneren Analsphinkters Botulinumtoxin injiziert werden. Es ist belegt, dass die operativen Therapien effektiver sind. Deshalb kann eine Operation schon als primäre Therapie oder nach erfolgloser medikamentöser Therapie erfolgen. Die Fissurektomie, evtl. mit zusätzlicher Botulinumtoxin Injektion oder Lappendeckung, ist die Operation der Wahl. Obwohl die laterale Internus Sphinkterotomie die CAF effektiver heilt, bleibt diese wegen dem höheren Risiko für eine postoperative Stuhlinkontinenz eine Option für Einzelfälle.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of anal fissure

BACKGROUND

Anal fissure has a very large number of treatment options. The choice is difficult. In an effort to assist in that, choice presented here is a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published treatments for anal fissure that have been studied in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Randomized trials were sought in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, EMBASE and the trials registry sites clinicaltrials.gov and who/int/ictrp/search/en. Abstracts were screened, full-text studies chosen, and finally eligible studies selected and abstracted. The review was then divided into those studies that compared two or more surgical procedures and those that had at least one arm that was non-surgical. Studies were further categorized by the specific interventions and comparisons. The outcome assessed was treatment failure. Negative effects of treatment assessed were headache and anal incontinence. Risk of bias was assessed for each study, and the strength of the evidence of each comparison was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-eight eligible trials were found and assessed, 31 in the surgical group and 117 in the non-surgical group. There were 14 different operations described in the surgical group and 29 different non-surgical treatments in the non-surgical group along with partial lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS). There were 61 different comparisons. Of these, 47 were reported in 2 or fewer studies, usually with quite small patient samples. The largest single comparison was glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) versus control with 19 studies. GTN was more effective than control in sustained cure (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.63-0.77), but the quality of evidence was very poor because of severe heterogeneity, and risk of bias due to inadequate clinical follow-up. The only comparison to have a GRADE quality of evidence of high was a subgroup analysis of LIS versus any medical therapy (OR 0.12; CI 0.07-0.21). Most of the other studies were downgraded in GRADE due to imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

LIS is superior to non-surgical therapies in achieving sustained cure of fissure. Calcium channel blockers were more effective than GTN and with less risk of headache, but with only a low quality of evidence. Anal incontinence, once thought to be a frequent risk with LIS, was found in various subgroups in this review to have a risk between 3.4 and 4.4%. Among the surgical studies, manual anal stretch performed worse than LIS in the treatment of chronic anal fissure in adults. For those patients requiring surgery for anal fissure, open LIS and closed LIS appear to be equally efficacious, with a moderate GRADE quality of evidence. All other GRADE evaluations of procedures were low to very low due mostly to imprecision.