Anal fistulas: do classification systems predict surgical outcomes?

IF 1.8
José Américo Bacchi Hora, Lucas Faraco Sobrado, Carlos Walter Sobrado, Natally Horvat, Carlos Frederico Sparapan Marques, Ulysses Ribeiro Junior, Sérgio Carlos Nahas
{"title":"Anal fistulas: do classification systems predict surgical outcomes?","authors":"José Américo Bacchi Hora, Lucas Faraco Sobrado, Carlos Walter Sobrado, Natally Horvat, Carlos Frederico Sparapan Marques, Ulysses Ribeiro Junior, Sérgio Carlos Nahas","doi":"10.1590/0102-67202025000058e1927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anal fistulas remain challenging in colorectal surgery, with recurrence and postoperative incontinence common despite advances in treatment. Multiple classification systems exist, but their predictive value for surgical and functional outcomes is unclear.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare Parks, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), and St. James's University Hospital (SJUH) MRI-based classifications in predicting surgical outcomes, including continence preservation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of 89 patients undergoing definitive surgical treatment for anorectal fistulas at a single referral center (2012-2019). Exclusions included rectovaginal fistulas, Crohn's disease, or prior pelvic radiotherapy. Fistulas were classified using Parks, ASCRS, and, when available, SJUH (n=49). Outcomes included the number of procedures, type of initial procedure, fistula closure, and closure without continence deterioration. Continence was assessed using the Cleveland Clinic Jorge-Wexner score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most fistulas were transsphincteric (Parks Type 2, 62%) and complex (ASCRS, 65%). Overall, 86.5% achieved fistula closure, and 73% achieved closure without continence deterioration. Parks and ASCRS were significantly associated with fistula closure with continence preservation (p=0.008 and 0.007, respectively) and type of initial procedure. Parks remained significant when considering closure alone (p=0.005), while ASCRS showed a borderline association (p=0.051). SJUH classification was associated only with procedure selection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Parks and ASCRS classifications were associated with fistula closure with continence preservation and type of initial procedure. Considering closure alone, only Parks remained significant. SJUH was limited to procedure selection. Overall, Parks and ASCRS guide surgical planning and prediction of functional outcomes, with Parks slightly more sensitive.</p><p><strong>Central message: </strong>Parks and ASCRS classifications are strongly associated with initial procedure choice and functional outcomes, including fistula closure with continence preservation. SJUH classification predicts only procedure selection. Parks appears slightly more sensitive, highlighting its value for surgical planning and anticipating postoperative function.</p><p><strong>Perspectives: </strong>Accurate classification of anal fistula is essential for guiding surgical strategies and counseling patient effectively. The Parks and ASCRS classification systems help predict which fistulas are likely to close successfully while preserving continence. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each system allows clinicians to select appropriate procedures, set realistic expectations, and facilitate shared decisionmaking. This approach ultimately improves outcomes in the management of complex anal fistulas.</p>","PeriodicalId":72298,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery","volume":"38 ","pages":"e1927"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13262977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-67202025000058e1927","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anal fistulas remain challenging in colorectal surgery, with recurrence and postoperative incontinence common despite advances in treatment. Multiple classification systems exist, but their predictive value for surgical and functional outcomes is unclear.

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare Parks, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), and St. James's University Hospital (SJUH) MRI-based classifications in predicting surgical outcomes, including continence preservation.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of 89 patients undergoing definitive surgical treatment for anorectal fistulas at a single referral center (2012-2019). Exclusions included rectovaginal fistulas, Crohn's disease, or prior pelvic radiotherapy. Fistulas were classified using Parks, ASCRS, and, when available, SJUH (n=49). Outcomes included the number of procedures, type of initial procedure, fistula closure, and closure without continence deterioration. Continence was assessed using the Cleveland Clinic Jorge-Wexner score.

Results: Most fistulas were transsphincteric (Parks Type 2, 62%) and complex (ASCRS, 65%). Overall, 86.5% achieved fistula closure, and 73% achieved closure without continence deterioration. Parks and ASCRS were significantly associated with fistula closure with continence preservation (p=0.008 and 0.007, respectively) and type of initial procedure. Parks remained significant when considering closure alone (p=0.005), while ASCRS showed a borderline association (p=0.051). SJUH classification was associated only with procedure selection.

Conclusions: Parks and ASCRS classifications were associated with fistula closure with continence preservation and type of initial procedure. Considering closure alone, only Parks remained significant. SJUH was limited to procedure selection. Overall, Parks and ASCRS guide surgical planning and prediction of functional outcomes, with Parks slightly more sensitive.

Central message: Parks and ASCRS classifications are strongly associated with initial procedure choice and functional outcomes, including fistula closure with continence preservation. SJUH classification predicts only procedure selection. Parks appears slightly more sensitive, highlighting its value for surgical planning and anticipating postoperative function.

Perspectives: Accurate classification of anal fistula is essential for guiding surgical strategies and counseling patient effectively. The Parks and ASCRS classification systems help predict which fistulas are likely to close successfully while preserving continence. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each system allows clinicians to select appropriate procedures, set realistic expectations, and facilitate shared decisionmaking. This approach ultimately improves outcomes in the management of complex anal fistulas.

肛瘘:分类系统能预测手术结果吗?
背景:肛瘘在结直肠手术中仍然具有挑战性,尽管治疗进展,但复发和术后尿失禁很常见。存在多种分类系统,但其对手术和功能预后的预测价值尚不清楚。目的:本研究的目的是比较Parks、美国结肠直肠外科学会(ASCRS)和圣詹姆斯大学医院(SJUH)基于mri的分类在预测手术结果(包括失禁保留)方面的差异。方法:回顾性分析2012-2019年在单一转诊中心接受肛管直肠瘘手术治疗的89例患者。排除包括直肠阴道瘘、克罗恩病或既往盆腔放疗。采用Parks、ASCRS和SJUH对瘘管进行分类(n=49)。结果包括手术次数、初始手术类型、瘘管闭合和闭合无失禁恶化。使用Cleveland Clinic Jorge-Wexner评分评估尿失禁。结果:大多数瘘管为经括约肌瘘管(Parks 2型,62%)和复杂瘘管(ASCRS, 65%)。总体而言,86.5%的患者实现了瘘管闭合,73%的患者实现了无失禁恶化的闭合。Parks和ASCRS与自制瘘管闭合(p分别=0.008和0.007)和初始手术类型显著相关。单独考虑关闭时,Parks仍然具有显著性(p=0.005),而ASCRS显示出边缘相关性(p=0.051)。SJUH的分类仅与手术选择有关。结论:Parks和ASCRS分类与自制瘘管闭合和初始手术类型相关。仅考虑关闭,只有帕克斯仍然重要。SJUH仅限于手术方法的选择。总的来说,Parks和ASCRS指导手术计划和预测功能结果,其中Parks稍微敏感一些。中心信息:Parks和ASCRS分类与初始手术选择和功能结果密切相关,包括瘘管闭合和失禁保存。SJUH分类只预测程序选择。帕克斯的敏感性略高,突出了其在手术计划和预测术后功能方面的价值。观点:肛瘘的准确分类对于指导手术策略和有效的患者咨询至关重要。Parks和ASCRS分类系统有助于预测哪些瘘管可能在保持自制的情况下成功关闭。了解每个系统的优势和局限性,使临床医生能够选择适当的程序,设定切合实际的期望,并促进共同决策。这种方法最终改善了复杂肛瘘的治疗效果。
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
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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