Is the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure truly a sphincter preserving procedure for anal fistula? A scoping review of the literature.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Ian Jse-Wei Tan, Bei En Siew, Jerrald Lau, Carol Pei Ling Yap, Stephanie Marie May Ee Soon, Ker-Kan Tan
{"title":"Is the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure truly a sphincter preserving procedure for anal fistula? A scoping review of the literature.","authors":"Ian Jse-Wei Tan, Bei En Siew, Jerrald Lau, Carol Pei Ling Yap, Stephanie Marie May Ee Soon, Ker-Kan Tan","doi":"10.1186/s40001-025-02380-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has garnered popularity with its success rates and purported sphincter-continence preservation. However, there remains a paucity in the literature on the objective evaluation of sphincter integrity and fecal continence after the LIFT procedure.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present study undertakes a scoping review to systematically explore and map the published literature, to evaluate the sufficiency of data on the impact on continence in patients after the LIFT procedure.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASe, CINAHL was performed from January 2007 to April 2020 and 597 publications were identified. Forty-two satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We performed a scoping review in accordance to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 3 (7.1%) of publications were randomized controlled trials, of which just 1 (2.4%) measured incontinence as a primary outcome. Continence was measured both pre- and post-LIFT in 30 (71.4%), of which 19 (45.2%) had a fixed protocol for continence assessment, which was heterogeneous between the studies. Continence was assessed using subjective scoring systems in 27 (64.3%) and objective measurement was performed in just 6 (14.3%). No studies performed post-operative anatomical assessment of the anal sphincter complex.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Long-term continence in post-LIFT patients is not supported with adequately powered prospective longitudinal trials using rigorously protocoled pre- and post-operative assessment of continence. Future research that focuses on a combination of objective assessment using anal manometry as well as anatomical assessment of the sphincter complex on top of subjective evaluation is needed before we can be certain if LIFT is indeed a sphincter and continence preserving technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":11949,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Medical Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"243"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11971777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-025-02380-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure has garnered popularity with its success rates and purported sphincter-continence preservation. However, there remains a paucity in the literature on the objective evaluation of sphincter integrity and fecal continence after the LIFT procedure.

Objectives: The present study undertakes a scoping review to systematically explore and map the published literature, to evaluate the sufficiency of data on the impact on continence in patients after the LIFT procedure.

Design: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASe, CINAHL was performed from January 2007 to April 2020 and 597 publications were identified. Forty-two satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We performed a scoping review in accordance to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Results: Only 3 (7.1%) of publications were randomized controlled trials, of which just 1 (2.4%) measured incontinence as a primary outcome. Continence was measured both pre- and post-LIFT in 30 (71.4%), of which 19 (45.2%) had a fixed protocol for continence assessment, which was heterogeneous between the studies. Continence was assessed using subjective scoring systems in 27 (64.3%) and objective measurement was performed in just 6 (14.3%). No studies performed post-operative anatomical assessment of the anal sphincter complex.

Conclusions: Long-term continence in post-LIFT patients is not supported with adequately powered prospective longitudinal trials using rigorously protocoled pre- and post-operative assessment of continence. Future research that focuses on a combination of objective assessment using anal manometry as well as anatomical assessment of the sphincter complex on top of subjective evaluation is needed before we can be certain if LIFT is indeed a sphincter and continence preserving technique.

括约肌间瘘道结扎术(LIFT)真的是一种保留括约肌的肛瘘手术吗?对文献的范围综述。
简介:括约肌间瘘道结扎(LIFT)手术因其成功率和声称的括约肌自制保护而受到欢迎。然而,关于LIFT手术后括约肌完整性和大便失禁的客观评价的文献仍然缺乏。目的:本研究进行了一项范围综述,系统地探索和绘制已发表的文献,以评估LIFT手术后对患者尿失禁影响的数据的充分性。设计:从2007年1月至2020年4月对MEDLINE、PubMed、EMBASe、CINAHL进行系统检索,确定597篇出版物。42例符合纳入和排除标准。我们按照PRISMA-ScR指南进行了范围审查。结果:只有3篇(7.1%)出版物是随机对照试验,其中只有1篇(2.4%)将尿失禁作为主要结局。30例(71.4%)患者在lift前后都测量了尿失禁,其中19例(45.2%)患者有固定的尿失禁评估方案,研究之间存在异质性。27例(64.3%)患者使用主观评分系统进行尿失禁评估,仅有6例(14.3%)患者进行了客观测量。没有研究进行术后肛门括约肌复合体的解剖评估。结论:充分有力的前瞻性纵向试验采用严格的术前和术后控制评估,无法支持lift术后患者的长期控制。在我们确定LIFT是否确实是一种保留括约肌和失禁的技术之前,需要在主观评估的基础上结合使用肛门测压的客观评估以及括约肌复合体的解剖学评估来进行未来的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Medical Research
European Journal of Medical Research 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
247
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Medical Research publishes translational and clinical research of international interest across all medical disciplines, enabling clinicians and other researchers to learn about developments and innovations within these disciplines and across the boundaries between disciplines. The journal publishes high quality research and reviews and aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted research are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信