Fistulotomy and primary sphincter reconstruction is a useful tool in the management of anal fistula: Results from a two-center retrospective study
Abstract
Introduction Anoperineal fistula (APF) treated by fistulectomy provides the best anatomical results but carries a high risk of anal incontinence. Sphincter reconstruction might improve these outcomes, but limited comparative data are available in the literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of fistulotomy plus sphincter reconstruction (FSR) and sphincter-sparing techniques for APF repair. Methods This two-center retrospective study included patients undergoing FSR or ligation of the inter-sphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) or rectal advancement flap (control group) techniques. Results Of the 119 patients included, 95 (79.8%) underwent FSR. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between groups. More inter- or trans-sphincteric fistulas were included in the control group, while there were more complex fistulas in the FSR group (P < 0.001). The healing rate was 76.2% in the control group compared to 91.6% in the FSR group (P = 0.056). No statistically significant difference was found in the overall complication (8.4%) or overall anal incontinence rates (14.7%) (P > 0.9). In contrast, the recurrence rate was higher in the control group than in the FSR group (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, FSR was associated with a lower risk of recurrence compared to the control group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03–0.77). Conclusion This study suggests that FSR may be superior to the other techniques in terms of cure without increasing morbidity or the risk of anal incontinence.
Related
- Per-endoscopic rectal fistulotomy: A new endoscopic rectal myotomy technique to support the management of complex anorectal fistulas
- Anterolateral Thigh Island Flap Reconstruction After Margin-Positive, Sphincter-Preserving Excision of Scrotal Extramammary Paget’s Disease: A Case Report
- Perineal Body Reconstruction for Anal Sphincter Insufficiency Following Obstetric Perineal Body Injury: Morphology-based Classification and Type-stratified Outcomes in 42 Cases.
- Comparative outcomes of primary closure, rhomboid flap reconstruction, and open excision for pilonidal sinus disease: a retrospective cohort study
- Real-World Management and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Primary or Recurrent Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study
BibTeX
@article{nasraoui2026fistulotomy,
title = {{Fistulotomy and primary sphincter reconstruction is a useful tool in the management of anal fistula: Results from a two-center retrospective study}},
author = {Aniss Nasraoui and Vincent de Parades and Mounzer Dia and Maëlig Poitevin and Aurélien Venara},
journal = {Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1016/j.jchirv.2026.05.007},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05732646v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Fistulotomy and primary sphincter reconstruction is a useful tool in the management of anal fistula: Results from a two-center retrospective study
AU - Aniss Nasraoui
AU - Vincent de Parades
AU - Mounzer Dia
AU - Maëlig Poitevin
AU - Aurélien Venara
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/31
JO - Journal de Chirurgie Viscérale
DO - 10.1016/j.jchirv.2026.05.007
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05732646v1
AB - Introduction Anoperineal fistula (APF) treated by fistulectomy provides the best anatomical results but carries a high risk of anal incontinence. Sphincter reconstruction might improve these outcomes, but limited comparative data are available in the literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of fistulotomy plus sphincter reconstruction (FSR) and sphincter-sparing techniques for APF repair. Methods This two-center retrospective study included patients undergoing FSR or ligation of the inter-sphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) or rectal advancement flap (control group) techniques. Results Of the 119 patients included, 95 (79.8%) underwent FSR. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between groups. More inter- or trans-sphincteric fistulas were included in the control group, while there were more complex fistulas in the FSR group (P < 0.001). The healing rate was 76.2% in the control group compared to 91.6% in the FSR group (P = 0.056). No statistically significant difference was found in the overall complication (8.4%) or overall anal incontinence rates (14.7%) (P > 0.9). In contrast, the recurrence rate was higher in the control group than in the FSR group (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, FSR was associated with a lower risk of recurrence compared to the control group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03–0.77). Conclusion This study suggests that FSR may be superior to the other techniques in terms of cure without increasing morbidity or the risk of anal incontinence.
SN - 1878-786X
ER -