A Novel Surgical Technique for Transsphincteric Anal Fistulas: A Comparison Between the Modified Submucosal Ligation of Fistula Tract (MSLOFT) and the Hybrid Seton Techiniques - A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Surgical Innovation Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1177/15533506251320296
Ramazan Gündoğdu, Afig Gojayev, Murathan Erkent, Tevfik Avcı, Murat Kuş, Serkan Erkan, Hüseyin Onur Aydın, Ali Ezer
{"title":"A Novel Surgical Technique for Transsphincteric Anal Fistulas: A Comparison Between the Modified Submucosal Ligation of Fistula Tract (MSLOFT) and the Hybrid Seton Techiniques - A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.","authors":"Ramazan Gündoğdu, Afig Gojayev, Murathan Erkent, Tevfik Avcı, Murat Kuş, Serkan Erkan, Hüseyin Onur Aydın, Ali Ezer","doi":"10.1177/15533506251320296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a modified submucosal ligation of the fistula tract (MSLOFT) technique with the hybrid seton technique for treating transsphincteric anal fistulas.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted with ethical approval from Baskent University. Patients over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of transsphincteric fistula and complete data were included in the study. Patients with fistulas of non-cryptoglandular origin, incontinence, multiple fistula tracts, inflammatory bowel disease, or malignancy were excluded. The study involved 255 patients, divided into: MSLOFT (n = 31) and hybrid seton (n = 224) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance age, gender, and body mass index between the groups, resulting in 30 patients per group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the MSLOFT and hybrid seton groups regarding Wexner scores, incontinence rates, recurrence, or reoperation rates, in the overall cohort and after PSM. However, in the overall cohort and after PSM analysis, the operation time (<i>P</i> = 0.047) and follow-up time (<i>P</i> < 0.001) of the MSLOFT group were significantly longer. Recurrence was noted in 3 MSLOFT patients and 2 hybrid seton patients after PSM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MSLOFT is a feasible and effective sphincter-preserving technique for transsphincteric anal fistulas, providing low recurrence and incontinence rates similar to the hybrid seton technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":22095,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Innovation","volume":" ","pages":"15533506251320296"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506251320296","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of a modified submucosal ligation of the fistula tract (MSLOFT) technique with the hybrid seton technique for treating transsphincteric anal fistulas.

Material and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted with ethical approval from Baskent University. Patients over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of transsphincteric fistula and complete data were included in the study. Patients with fistulas of non-cryptoglandular origin, incontinence, multiple fistula tracts, inflammatory bowel disease, or malignancy were excluded. The study involved 255 patients, divided into: MSLOFT (n = 31) and hybrid seton (n = 224) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance age, gender, and body mass index between the groups, resulting in 30 patients per group.

Results: There was no significant difference between the MSLOFT and hybrid seton groups regarding Wexner scores, incontinence rates, recurrence, or reoperation rates, in the overall cohort and after PSM. However, in the overall cohort and after PSM analysis, the operation time (P = 0.047) and follow-up time (P < 0.001) of the MSLOFT group were significantly longer. Recurrence was noted in 3 MSLOFT patients and 2 hybrid seton patients after PSM.

Conclusion: MSLOFT is a feasible and effective sphincter-preserving technique for transsphincteric anal fistulas, providing low recurrence and incontinence rates similar to the hybrid seton technique.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Innovation 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Innovation (SRI) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal focusing on minimally invasive surgical techniques, new instruments such as laparoscopes and endoscopes, and new technologies. SRI prepares surgeons to think and work in "the operating room of the future" through learning new techniques, understanding and adapting to new technologies, maintaining surgical competencies, and applying surgical outcomes data to their practices. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Comparative Evaluation of Laparoscopic Origami Crane Training With 3D and 2D Laparoscopy: Correlation With Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Scores. Virtual Colonoscopy: Retrospective Comparison of the Findings in Supine and Prone Positions. LigaSure in Breast Surgery: A Paradigm Shift With Unresolved Questions. A Novel Surgical Technique for Transsphincteric Anal Fistulas: A Comparison Between the Modified Submucosal Ligation of Fistula Tract (MSLOFT) and the Hybrid Seton Techiniques - A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Evaluating Outcomes of Same Day Discharge After Minimally Invasive Colectomy: A Nationwide Analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1