Bilateral Rotational S Flap Technique for Preventing Restenosis in Patients With Severe Circular Anal Stenosis: A Review of 2 Cases

Anoplasty for anatomical anal stenosis: systematic review of complications and recurrences

AIM

The optimal surgical treatment for anatomical anal stenosis (AS) remains to be determined. The aim of this study was to determine the rates of complications and recurrence after anoplasty for anatomical AS and, wherever feasible, compare the outcomes for the various techniques.

METHOD

A PROSPERO-registered systematic review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library of Systematic Review, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for articles published up to May 2021. Studies that assessed the outcomes of anoplasty in adult patients with anatomical AS were selected. The primary outcomes were complications and recurrence. The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.

RESULTS

From the total of 2705 unique screened records, 151 were assessed for eligibility. Only 29 studies (two prospective) met the inclusion criteria, reporting data on 556 patients [mean age 53 (18-83) years, 46% female]. Previous history of surgery for haemorrhoidal disease accounted for three quarters of cases. A total of 14 types of anoplasty were found, with the Y-V flap being the most performed technique [27% of cases (n = 149)]. Complications frequently occurred, with a pooled prevalence of 10.2% (95% CI 3.9%-24.1%) after Y-V flap and 11.5% (5.3%-23.0%) after rhomboid/diamond flap. Patients undergoing house flap achieved better results in terms of clinical improvement, satisfaction and quality of life compared with Y-V flap and rhomboid/diamond flap. When considering only studies with at least 12 months of follow-up, the pooled prevalence of recurrence was 4.7% (2.2%-9.8%), with significantly higher rates observed in the prospective versus retrospective series [pooled prevalence 18.9% (11.5%-29.5%) vs. 3.6% (1.7-7.8%), respectively; p < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Both complications and recurrence were significantly lower after house flap compared with rhomboid/diamond and Y-V flap. Better designed multicentre studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021239493.

Is anoplasty superior to scar revision surgery for post-hemorrhoidectomy anal stenosis? Six years of experience

BACKGROUND

Anal stenosis is a rare but frustrating condition that usually occurs as a complication of hemorrhoidectomy. The severity of anal stenosis can be classified into three categories: mild, moderate, and severe. There are two main surgical treatments for this condition: scar revision surgery and anoplasty; however, no studies have compared these two approaches, and it remains unclear which is preferrable for stenoses of different severities.

AIM

To compare the outcomes of scar revision surgery and double diamond-shaped flap anoplasty.

METHODS

Patients with mild, moderate, or severe anal stenosis following hemorrhoidectomy procedures who were treated with either scar revision surgery or double diamond-shaped flap anoplasty at our institution between January 2010 and December 2015 were investigated and compared. The severity of stenosis was determined via anal examination performed digitally or using a Hill-Ferguson retractor. The explored patient characteristics included age, sex, preoperative severity of anal stenosis, preoperative symptoms, and preoperative adjuvant therapy; moreover, their postoperative quality of life was measured using a 10-point scale. Patients underwent proctologic follow-up examinations one, two, and four weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

We analyzed 60 consecutive patients, including 36 men (60%) and 24 women (40%). The mean operative time for scar revision surgery was significantly shorter than that for double diamond-shaped flap anoplasty (10.14 ± 2.31 [range: 7-15] min vs 21.62 ± 4.68 [range: 15-31] min; P < 0.001). The average of length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter after scar revision surgery than after anoplasty (2.1 ± 0.3 vs 2.9 ± 0.4 d; P < 0.001). Postoperative satisfaction was categorized into four groups: 45 patients (75%) reported excellent satisfaction (scores of 8-10), 13 (21.7%) reported good satisfaction (scores of 6-7), two (3.3%) had no change in satisfaction (scores of 3-5), and none (0%) had scores indicating poor satisfaction (1-2). As such, most patients were satisfied with their quality of life after surgery other than the two who noticed no difference due owing to the fact that they experienced recurrences.

CONCLUSION

Scar revision surgery may be preferable for mild anal stenosis upon conservative treatment failure. Anoplasty is unavoidable for moderate or severe stenosis, where cicatrized tissue is extensive.