Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract vs conventional surgery for anal fistula in Chinese patients.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Xue Li, Cong-Cong Zhi, Xiao-Long Wang, Li-Hua Zheng, Yi-Cheng Cheng
{"title":"Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract <i>vs</i> conventional surgery for anal fistula in Chinese patients.","authors":"Xue Li, Cong-Cong Zhi, Xiao-Long Wang, Li-Hua Zheng, Yi-Cheng Cheng","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.113979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anal fistula is a common anorectal disorder for which conventional surgical procedures often result in relatively high recurrence and complication rates. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT), a sphincter-preserving technique, has emerged as a potential alternative.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To systematically evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of LIFT <i>vs</i> conventional surgical approaches in the management of anal fistula using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive systematic search of both Chinese and international databases to identify RCTs published during January 2014 to 2025. Studies were deemed eligible if they directly compared LIFT with conventional surgical approaches, such as seton placement, fistulotomy, and fistulectomy. The extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager; the methodological quality of the included trials was rigorously evaluated by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 107 RCTs involving 9401 participants met the inclusion criteria. LIFT yielded higher healing rates and significantly lower recurrence and complication rates than conventional surgery. Patients undergoing LIFT reported a lower postoperative pain, shorter wound-healing duration, and better preservation of the anal sphincter function. No significant difference was recorded in the operative time between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LIFT procedure demonstrated clear advantages over conventional surgical methods in terms of clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative recovery, supporting the former's role as an effective and sphincter-preserving treatment for anal fistula. Nevertheless, most available trials are limited by short follow-up durations and heterogeneous outcome definitions, underscoring the need for undertaking large, multicenter RCTs employing standardized endpoints.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"18 2","pages":"113979"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12968696/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.113979","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anal fistula is a common anorectal disorder for which conventional surgical procedures often result in relatively high recurrence and complication rates. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT), a sphincter-preserving technique, has emerged as a potential alternative.

Aim: To systematically evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of LIFT vs conventional surgical approaches in the management of anal fistula using evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive systematic search of both Chinese and international databases to identify RCTs published during January 2014 to 2025. Studies were deemed eligible if they directly compared LIFT with conventional surgical approaches, such as seton placement, fistulotomy, and fistulectomy. The extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager; the methodological quality of the included trials was rigorously evaluated by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

Results: In total, 107 RCTs involving 9401 participants met the inclusion criteria. LIFT yielded higher healing rates and significantly lower recurrence and complication rates than conventional surgery. Patients undergoing LIFT reported a lower postoperative pain, shorter wound-healing duration, and better preservation of the anal sphincter function. No significant difference was recorded in the operative time between the two groups.

Conclusion: The LIFT procedure demonstrated clear advantages over conventional surgical methods in terms of clinical efficacy, safety, and postoperative recovery, supporting the former's role as an effective and sphincter-preserving treatment for anal fistula. Nevertheless, most available trials are limited by short follow-up durations and heterogeneous outcome definitions, underscoring the need for undertaking large, multicenter RCTs employing standardized endpoints.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

括约肌间瘘道结扎术与传统手术治疗肛瘘的比较。
背景:肛瘘是一种常见的肛肠疾病,常规手术治疗往往导致相对较高的复发率和并发症。括约肌间瘘管束结扎(LIFT)是一种保留括约肌的技术,已成为一种潜在的替代方法。目的:利用随机对照试验(RCTs)的证据,系统评价和比较LIFT与传统手术方法治疗肛瘘的临床疗效、安全性和术后结果。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南,我们对中国和国际数据库进行了全面的系统检索,以确定2014年1月至2025年发表的rct。如果研究直接将LIFT与传统手术方法(如植筋膜植入、瘘管切开术和瘘管切除术)进行比较,则该研究被认为是合格的。提取的数据使用Review Manager进行分析;采用Cochrane风险偏倚工具对纳入试验的方法学质量进行严格评估。结果:共纳入107项rct, 9401名受试者符合纳入标准。与传统手术相比,LIFT的治愈率更高,复发率和并发症发生率显著降低。接受LIFT手术的患者术后疼痛较轻,伤口愈合时间较短,肛门括约肌功能保存较好。两组手术时间无明显差异。结论:LIFT手术在临床疗效、安全性和术后恢复方面明显优于传统手术方法,支持前者作为一种有效的保留肛瘘括约肌的治疗方法。然而,大多数可用的试验受到随访时间短和结果定义不一致的限制,强调需要进行采用标准化终点的大型多中心随机对照试验。
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
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书