Screening for the effectiveness of conservative treatment in chronic anal fissure patients using anorectal manometry

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland guideline on the management of anal fissure

AIM

The management of anal fissure: ACPGBI position statement was written 15 years ago. [KLR Cross et al., Colorectal Dis, 2008]. Our aim was to update the guideline and provide recommendations on the most effective treatment for patients with anal fissures utilising a multidisciplinary, rigorous guideline methodology.

METHODS

The development process consisted of six phases. In phase 1 we defined the scope of the guideline. The patient population included patients with acute and chronic anal fissure. The target group was all practitioners (primary and secondary care) treating patients with fissures and, in addition, healthcare workers and patients who desired information regarding fissure management. In phase 2 we formed a guideline development group (GDG) including a methodologist. In phase 3 review questions were formulated, using a reversed PICO process, starting with possible recommendations based on the GDG's knowledge. In phase 4 a comprehensive literature search focused on existing systematic reviews addressing each review question, supplemented by more recent studies if appropriate. In phase 5 data were extracted from the included papers and checked by the GDG. If indicated, meta-analysis of systematic review data was updated by the GDG. During phase 6 the GDG members decided what recommendations could be made based on the evidence in the literature and strength of the recommendation was assessed using 'grade'.

RESULTS

This guideline is divided into two sections: Primary care which includes (i) diagnosis; (ii) basic treatment; (iii) topical treatment; and secondary care which includes (iv) botulinum toxin therapy; (v) surgical intervention and (vi) special situations (including pregnancy and breast-feeding patients, children, receptive anal intercourse and low-pressure fissures). A total of 23 recommendations were formulated. A new term clinically healed was described by the GDG.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides an up-to-date evidence-based summary of the current knowledge of the management of anal fissure and may serve as a useful guide for clinicians as well as a potential reference for patients.

Comparison of botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection and lateral internal sphincterotomy (redo-LIS) for recurrent anal fissure treatment

Objective

Today's gold standard for treating chronic anal fissure is the Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy (LIS). Botulinum Toxin (BoNT) injection is, on the other hand, an alternative treatment for patients who do not want to have surgical treatment, patients undergoing chemotherapy, patients of high risk for surgery, and those who have the risk of anal incontinence (e.g., elderly, past anorectal surgery, vaginal multiple births, etc.). The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of BoNT and redo-LIS for treatment of post-LIS recurrent chronic anal fissure, and reveal differences if any.This study aims to compare redo-LIS and BoNT injection for treating post-LIS recurrent anal fissure.

Material and method

Nineteen patients who received LIS treatment and then redo-LIS or BoNT injection due to recurrence in the follow-up were included in this study. Group I (redo-LIS group) include 11 patients and group 2 (BoNT group) includes 8 patients. Their data on age, sex, anal incontinence scores and pain (VAS score) score as well.

Results

During the 3-month post-surgery follow-up period, there was statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) between groups by pain. No deterioration in the incontinence scores of patients in the group during the 6-month post-surgery period.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that redo lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is a reliable method for patients who received LIS but developed recurrent chronic anal fissure, and achieves successful results in terms of recurrence and relief of pain.

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.

Does Adding a Fissurectomy to Botox Sphincterotomy Increase Success Rate or Just Cost?

BACKGROUND

While Botox sphincterotomy with or without fissurectomy has been proven effective in healing anal fissures, they have not been directly compared. We evaluated cost-effectiveness and outcomes between Botox sphincterotomies with and without fissurectomy.

METHODS

A 5-year retrospective review was conducted comparing all patients undergoing Botox sphincterotomy for anal fissure with or without fissurectomy. Outcomes including recurrence/persistence, additional treatments, complications, and total charges were compared between study groups.

RESULTS

Patients treated without fissurectomy (n = 53) had recurrent/persistent fissure more often (56.6 vs 31.0%, P = .001), and required more Botox treatments. Those treated with fissurectomy (n = 154) had more complications (13.5 vs 0%, P = .003). Patients initially treated without fissurectomy had a median total charge of $2 973, while median total charge for those initially treated with fissurectomy was $17 925 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Botox sphincterotomy in an office without fissurectomy is a viable option. It may result in longer healing times but is associated with reduced cost, lower complication rates, and no need for anesthesia or operative intervention in most cases. But the choice of treatment route must be individualized.

MEBO versus topical Diltiazem versus a combination of both ointments in the treatment of acute anal fissure: a randomized clinical trial protocol

Background

Anal fissure is a common complication of the anorectal region and one of the most reported causes of anal pain. Acute anal fissure can be cured by surgery or medical treatment. There is an increase in the use of topical therapy for the treatment of anal fissures. A common topical drug used is Diltiazem (DTZ), a calcium-channel blocker, which relaxes the anal sphincter and thus promotes healing of the anal fissure. Moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO) is an ointment that is effective for the treatment of burns and wound healing and is becoming popular in the treatment of anal fissures.

Methods

This is a 1:1:1 randomized, controlled, parallel design, with endpoint measures of change in pain score, wound healing, defecation strain score and patient’s global impression of improvement. The study will be conducted at AUBMC over a 10-week period. Patients will be randomized to three treatment arms: MEBO, Diltiazem, and a combination of MEBO and Diltiazem ointments.

Discussion

The results of this study will allow physicians to assess the efficacy and safety of MEBO in the treatment of acute anal fissure, and also in comparison to Diltiazem. This trial will generate evidence-based conclusions regarding the use of a herbal/natural-based product (MEBO ointment) for the treatment of anal fissures.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04153032. Clinical Trial Registration Date: 06-NOVEMBER-2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-021-03227-z.

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.

Efficacy of nitroglycerine ointment in the treatment of pediatric anal fissure

BACKGROUND

Anal fissure is the most common anal disease in children. In the past few decades, the understanding of its pathophysiology has led to a progressive reduction in invasive procedures in favor of conservative treatment based on stool softeners and the relaxation of the anal sphincter. This randomized controlled study assessed the safety and efficacy of nitroglycerine (NTG) ointment in the treatment of pediatric anal fissure, which had not yet been proved.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An unequal randomized controlled study included 105 pediatric patients with anal fissure who had presented to the private and outpatient clinics of the Central Teaching Hospital of Pediatrics during the period from February 2015 to May 2016. The control group consisted of 70 patients. Both groups were treated with classical conservative therapy of sitz bath, stool softener, and local anesthetic. In the second group, chemical sphincterotomy with 0.2% NTG ointment was used in 35 patients, and was applied at the anal canal twice daily for 8weeks. The primary outcomes of symptomatic improvement and healed fissure, as well as side effects, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average age of patients was 2years (range, 4months to 5years). Patients in the NTG group had 77% symptomatic relief and 60% healed fissure compared to the control group, which had 54% and 32.8% respectively. All were statistically significant. No serious adverse effects were noticed during the treatment period.

CONCLUSION

The use of 0.2% NTG ointment is an effective therapy for anal fissure in children in terms of good healing rate and rapid symptom relief, but it has the drawback of a long treatment period, making patient compliance more difficult, in addition to the problems of tolerance and recurrence.

TYPE OF STUDY

Prospective randomized controlled study (treatment study).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Type 2.

Choice of treatments for anal fissure

Chronic anal fissure (CAF) is one of the most common and painful proctologic diseases. Its treatment has long been discussed and several different therapeutic options have been proposed. The understanding of its pathophysiology has led to a progressive reduction of invasive and potentially invalidating treatments in favor of conservative treatment. Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is a surgical treatment that is considered the 'gold standard' therapy for CAF. It relieves CAF symptoms with a high rate of healing. The risk of incontinence after this procedure seems to be severe. Chemical sphincterotomy (CS) is safe, with the rapid relief of pain, no risk of surgery or anesthesia, but is a statistically less effective therapy for CAF than LIS. In recent years, fissurectomy coupled with CS has been demonstrated to be a satisfactory treatment for chronic anal fissure and an alternative to lateral sphincterotomy when conservative measures fail.

Anal fissure

Anal fissure is one of the most common anorectal problems. Anal fissure is largely associated with high anal sphincter pressures and most treatment options are based on reducing anal pressures. Conservative management, using increased fiber and warm baths, results in healing of approximately half of all anal fissures. In fissures that fail conservative care, various pharmacologic and surgical options offer satisfactory cure rates. Lateral internal sphincterotomy remains the gold standard for definitive management of anal fissure. This review outlines the key points in the presentation, pathophysiology, and management of anal fissure.

Functional studies of the gastrointestinal tract in adult surgical clinics: when do they help?

Gut motility and visceral sensation are two important components of normal gastrointestinal (GI) tract function. Disordered gut motility and sensation can cause significant symptoms which not only pose a health burden to patients, but may also mimic structural diseases and may generate many surgical referrals from primary care. Unfortunately, diagnostic testing for disorders of function lags well behind that for structural disease. In this article we review common presentations of functional disorders in surgical clinics, and relevant testing modalities.

Topical diltiazem cream versus botulinum toxin a for the treatment of chronic anal fissure: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

A double-blind randomized clinical trial to compare topical diltiazem with botulinum toxin A (BTA) in the treatment of chronic anal fissure.

BACKGROUND

Chronic anal fissures remain a challenging condition. Topical diltiazem and BTA are promising agents in the treatment of anal fissure. As to date diltiazem and BTA were never compared in a solid randomized trial, which is the purpose of this study.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-four patients were randomized to receive either diltiazem cream and placebo injection or BTA injection and placebo cream. The primary end point was fissure healing after 3 months.

RESULTS

After 3 months healing of the fissure was noted in 32 of 74 (43%) patients in the diltiazem group and 26 of 60 (43%) patients in the BTA group. Reduction >50% in mean pain score was noted in 58 of 74 (78%) patients in the diltiazem group and 49 of 60 (82%) patients in the BTA group. Perianal itching was the only side effect reported and was noted in 15% of patients in the diltiazem group, and this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

BTA yields higher healing rates in the short term, though after 3 months diltiazem and BTA resulted in equal healing rates. Also no significant difference in pain reduction was observed for both treatments. This study shows no significant advantage of one treatment compared to the other. This randomized clinical trial is registered by the Dutch Trial Register as NTR1012.

Identifying the best therapy for chronic anal fissure

Chronic anal fissure (CAF) is a painful tear or crack which occurs in the anoderm. The optimal algorithm of therapy for CAF is still debated. Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is a surgical treatment, considered as the ‘gold standard’ therapy for CAF. It relieves CAF symptoms with a high rate of healing. Chemical sphincterotomy (CS) with nitrates, calcium blockers or botulinum toxin (BTX) is safe, with the rapid relief of pain, mild side-effects and no risk of surgery or anesthesia, but is a statistically less effective therapy for CAF than LIS. This article considers if aggressive treatment should only be offered to patients who fail pharmacological sphincterotomy. Aspects of anal fissure etiology, epidemiology and pathophysiology are considered with their meaning for further management of CAF. A molecular model of chemical interdependence significant for the chemistry of CAF healing is examined. Its application may influence the development of optimal therapy for CAF. BTX is currently considered the most effective type of CS and discussion in this article scrutinizes this method specifically. Although the effectiveness of BTX vs. LIS has been discussed, the essential focus of the article concerns identifying the best therapy application for anal fissure. Elements are presented which may help us to predict CAF healing. They provide rationale for the expansion of the CAF therapy algorithm. Ethical and economic factors are also considered in brief. As long as the patient is willing to accept the potential risk of fecal incontinence, we have grounds for the ‘gold standard’ (LIS) as the first-line treatment for CAF. We conclude that, when the diagnosis of the anal fissure is established, CS should be considered for both ethical and economic reasons. The author is convinced that a greater understanding and recognition of benign anal disorders by the GP and a proactive involvement at the point of initial diagnosis would facilitate the consideration of CS at an earlier, more practical stage with improved outcomes for the patient.