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

Tailored lateral internal sphincterotomy (T-LIS) for chronic anal fissure by LigaSure Small Jaws©: a comparison with other non-conservative treatments for anal fissures

An anal fissure is a small tear in the thin tissue (mucosa) that lines the anus. Anal fissures typically cause pain and bleeding with bowel movements. The cause is not fully understood, but low intake of dietary fiber may be a risk factor. Chronic anal fissure was defined as a split or ulceration in the posterior or anterior anoderm for at least 6 weeks: have distinct anatomic features such as muscle fibers visible in the wound. Anal fissures can be attributed to constipation or repeated straining: a hard fecal bolus cut the mucosa of anal canal that is relatively thigh at sphincter level management and optimal treatment of the disease is controversial. Many studies recommend conservative and medical treatment modalities as the initial treatment options since they are non-invasive and do not have risks such as anal sphincter injury. Lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) is considered the gold standard for treatment of chronic anal fissure. Nonetheless, anal incontinence is one of the worrisome complications of LIS. Fissurectomy is another option among those techniques which address the issues with LIS. LigaSure© (Valleylab) is a bipolar electrosurgical device designed to deliver high current and very low voltage to tissue. It monitors tissue impedance between the jaws of the instrument and continuously adjusts the delivery of energy. The use of LigaSure Small Jaw was never reported for anal fissures in literature. We have applied the use of this device to a group of patients complaining for chronic anal fissure in order to verify if there is any advantage to perform it compared to traditional technique (blade, scissors, electrocautery).

Comparison of etiological and physiological characteristics of fecal incontinence in men and women

Fecal incontinence (FI) is often underreported and underestimated in men. Our aims were to clarify the causes and the physiological characteristics of FI in men and to underline the differences between etiological and physiological factors in men and women diagnosed with FI. The study cohort encompassed 200 men and 200 women who underwent anatomical and physiological evaluation for FI in a tertiary referral center specializing in pelvic floor disorders. All patients underwent endoanal ultrasound and anorectal manometry. Evacuation proctography was performed in some patients. Demographic, medical, anatomical, and physiological parameters were compared between the two study groups. Urge incontinence was the most frequent type of FI in both genders. In men, anal fistula, history of anal surgeries, rectal tumors, and pelvic radiotherapy were common etiologic factors, whereas history of pelvic surgeries was more common in women. Associated urinary incontinence was reported more frequently by women. External anal sphincter defects, usually anterior, were more common in women (M: 1.5%, F: 24%, P < 0.0001), whereas internal anal sphincter defect prevalence was similar in men and women (M: 6%, F: 12%, P = 0.19). Decreased resting and squeeze pressures were less common in men (M: 29%, F: 46%, P < 0.0001: M: 44%, F: 66%, P < 0.0001). The incidence of rectal hyposensitivity was higher in men (M: 11.1%, F: 2.8%, P < 0.0001), whereas rectal hypersensitivity was higher in women (M: 5.8%, F: 10.8%, P < 0.0001). Anorectal dyssynergia was more common in men (M: 66%, F: 37%, P < 0.0001). Significantly different etiological factors and physiological characteristics for FI were found in men. Acknowledging these differences is significant and may yield better treatment options.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Fecal incontinence (FI) in men has different etiological factors when compared with women. The prevalence of internal anal sphincter defect among men with FI was similar to women. Different manometric measurements were found among men with FI: decreased anal pressures were less common among men, whereas rectal hyposensitivity and anorectal dyssynergia were more common among men.

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.

Anorectal Anatomy Quiz: Practical Review

Understanding anorectal and pelvic floor anatomy can be challenging but is paramount for every physician managing patients with anorectal pathology. Knowledge of anorectal anatomy is essential for managing benign, malignant, traumatic, and infectious diseases affecting the anorectum. This quiz is intended to provide a practical teaching guide for medical students, medical and surgical residents, and may serve as a review for practicing general surgeons and specialists.

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.

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.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Controlled Manual Anal Dilatation in the Treatment of Chronic Anal Fissures: A Single-center Observational Study

Objectives

Conventional anal dilatation for anal fissures has long been abandoned because of the high incidence of anal incontinence. However, less invasive and more precise dilation techniques have been developed that have shown high healing and low incontinence rates. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of controlled anal dilatation (CAD) using a standardized maximum anal diameter.

Methods

This study included 523 patients who underwent CAD for chronic anal fissures between January 2010 and December 2014. CAD was performed under sacral epidural anesthesia. The index fingers of both hands were placed in the anus and dilated evenly in various directions. CAD was completed when the anus was dilated to the sixth scale (35 mm in diameter) using a caliber ruler.

Results

The mean anal scale size expanded from 3.1 to 5.8 (p<0.001). Non-healing was observed in nine patients (1.7%) at 1 month postoperatively, six of whom underwent additional CAD. The mean maximal anal resting pressure (mmHg) decreased from 90.2 to 79.7 at three months postoperatively (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were observed in 11 (2.1%) patients, of whom three patients with thrombosed hemorrhoids underwent resection. None of the patients complained of anal incontinence during the mean follow-up period of 16.6 months. The cumulative recurrence-free rates at three and five years were 87.9% and 69.2%, respectively.

Conclusions

CAD is technically simple and safe and can achieve reasonable long-term outcomes. Thus, CAD appears to be the preferred procedure for patients with chronic anal fissures who do not respond to conservative treatments.

Fissurectomy with mucosal advancement flap anoplasty: The end of a dogma?

INTRODUCTION

The goal was to compare fissurectomy with mucosal advancement flap anoplasty to fissurectomy alone in the surgical treatment of anal fissure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included patients who underwent surgery in 2019 for solitary, idiopathic, non-infected, posterior anal fissure, after failure of medical treatment. The choice to perform advancement flap anoplasty was based on surgeon preference and did not depend on the fissure itself. The main endpoint was the time to relief of pain.

RESULTS

Of 599 fissurectomies performed during the study period, 226 patients (37.6% women, mean age 41.7±12.0 years old) underwent fissurectomy alone (n=182) or associated with advancement flap anoplasty (n=44). The two groups differed as to their sex ratio (33.5 vs. 54.5% women, P=0.01), body mass index (25.3±4.0 vs. 23.6±3.9, P=0.013) and Bristol score (3.2 vs. 3.4, P=0.038). Time to relief of pain, time to disappearance of bleeding and time to healing were 1.1 (0.5-2.3), 1.0 (0.5-2.1) and 2.0 (1.1-3.6) months, respectively. The rate of healing was 93.8% and the complication rate was 6.2%. The differences between the two groups for these outcomes were not statistically significant. The risk factors associated with absence of healing were age ≥ 40 years (Odds ratio (OR): 3.84; 95% CI, 1.12-17.68) and pre-surgical duration of fissure<35.6 weeks (OR: 6.54; 95% CI: 1.69-43.21).

CONCLUSION

Mucosal advancement flap anoplasty does not provide any added value to fissurectomy alone.

Can Targeting Sphincter Spasm Reduce Post-Haemorrhoidectomy Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhoidectomy is often complicated by significant post-operative pain, to which spasm of the internal anal sphincter is thought to be a contributing factor. This study appraises the evidence behind interventions aimed at lowering sphincter spasm to relieve post-haemorrhoidectomy pain.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses compliant systematic review was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched. All RCTs which compared interventions targeting the internal anal sphincter to relieve pain post excisional haemorrhoidectomy were included. The primary outcome measure was pain on the visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Of the initial 10,221 search results, 39 articles were included in a qualitative synthesis, and 33 studies were included in a meta-analysis. Topical glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) reduced pain on day 7 (7 studies, 485 participants), with a mean difference and 95% confidence interval (MD, 95% CI) of -1.34 (-2.31; -0.37), I² = 91%. Diltiazem reduced pain on day 3 on the VAS, and the MD was -2.75 (-398; -1.51) shown in five studies (n = 227). Botulinum toxin reduced pain on day 7, in four studies with 178 participants, MD -1.43 (-2.50; -0.35) I² = 62%. The addition of Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy to haemorrhoidectomy reduced pain on day 2 in three studies with 275 participants, MD of -2.13 (-3.49; -0.77) I² = 92%. The results were limited by high heterogeneity and risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that lateral sphincterotomy, administration of botulinum toxin and the application of topical diltiazem or GTN can reduce post-operative pain after haemorrhoidectomy. Lateral sphincterotomy should not be routinely used due to the risk of incontinence.