European Society of Coloproctology: Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula.

AIM: The primary aim of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) Guideline Development Group (GDG) was to produce high-quality, evidence-based guidelines for the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula with input from a multidisciplinary group and using transparent, reproducible methodology. METHODS: Previously published methodology in guideline development by the ESCP has been replicated in this project. The guideline development process followed the requirements of the AGREE-S tool kit. Six phases can be identified in the methodology. Phase one sets the scope of the guideline, which addresses the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula in adult patients presenting to secondary care. The target population for this guideline are healthcare practitioners in secondary care and patients interested in understanding the clinical evidence available for various surgical interventions for anal fistula. Phase two involved formulation of the GDG. The GDG consisted of 21 coloproctologists, three research fellows, a radiologist and a methodologist. Stakeholders were chosen for their clinical and academic involvement in the management of anal fistula as well as being representative of the geographical variation among the ESCP membership. Five patients were recruited from patient groups to review the draft guideline. These patients attended two virtual meetings to discuss the evidence and suggest amendments. In phase three, patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes questions were formulated by the GDG. The GDG ratified 250 questions and chose 45 for inclusion in the guideline. In phase four, critical and important outcomes were confirmed for inclusion. Important outcomes were pain and wound healing. Critical outcomes were fistula healing, fistula recurrence and incontinence. These outcomes formed part of the inclusion criteria for the literature search. In phase five, a literature search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by eight teams of the GDG. Data were extracted and submitted for review by the GDG in a draft guideline. The most recent systematic reviews were prioritized for inclusion. Studies published since the most recent systematic review were included in our analysis by conducting a new meta-analysis using Review manager. In phase six, recommendations were formulated, using grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations, in three virtual meetings of the GDG. RESULTS: In seven sections covering the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal abscess and cryptoglandular anal fistula, there are 42 recommendations. CONCLUSION: This is an up-to-date international guideline on the management of cryptoglandular anal fistula using methodology prescribed by the AGREE enterprise.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis Compared to Appendectomy: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Non-operative management (NOM) of uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been introduced as an alternative to appendectomy. This umbrella review aimed to provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of NOM of uncomplicated AA in the published systematic reviews. METHODS: This umbrella review has been reported in line with the PRISMA guidelines and umbrella review approach. Systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses on the efficacy of NOM of AA were analyzed. The quality of the reviews was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. The main outcomes measures were the treatment failure and complication rates of NOM and hospital stay as compared to appendectomy. RESULTS: Eighteen systematic reviews were included to this umbrella review. Eight reviews documented higher odds of failure with NOM, whereas two reviews revealed similar odds of failure. Six reviews reported lower odds of complications with NOM, six reported similar odds, and one reported lower odds of complications with surgery. Eight reviews reported similar hospital stay between NOM and appendectomy, one reported longer stay with NOM and another reported shorter stay with NOM. Pooled analyses showed that NOM was associated with higher treatment failure overall, in children-only, adults only, and RCTs-only meta-analyses. NOM was associated with lower complications overall, yet children-only and RCTs-only analyses revealed similar complications to surgery. NOM was associated with shorter stay in the overall and adult-only analysis, but not in the children-only analysis. CONCLUSIONS: NOM of AA is associated with higher treatment failure, marginally lower rate of complications and shorter stay than appendectomy.

A Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of video-assisted anal fistula treatment (VAAFT).

BACKGROUND: Video-assisted anal fistula treatment (VAAFT) is a novel, minimally invasive technique for the treatment of fistula-in-ano (FIA). This review aimed to search the literature for the outcome of VAAFT regarding the recurrence and complication rates of the technique. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in compliance with the PRISMA screening guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for articles reporting the outcomes of VAAFT procedure from inception through April 2017. The main outcomes were patients' characteristics, technical aspects, operation time, recurrence, and complication rates. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 788 patients) were included. The mean age of the patients was 39.5 years. 66.5% of patients had high or complex FIA and 18.4% underwent previous fistula surgery. The internal opening of the fistula was detected in 85.7% of patients. The mean operation time was 42 ± 14.2 min. The weighed mean rate of detection of internal opening was 93.3%. Recurrence occurred in 112 (14.2%) patients after a median follow-up of 9 months. Recurrence rates varied according to method of closure of internal opening from 15.3% after using staplers, 17.7% after suturing, to 25% after advancement flap. The weighted mean recurrence rate across the studies was 17.7%. The weighted mean complication rate was 4.8%. CONCLUSION: VAAFT may be considered an effective diagnostic tool and a safe method for the treatment of complex and high FIA attaining satisfactory outcome and acceptably low complications. Recurrence after VAAFT may be related to previous fistula surgery and the method of closure of the internal opening.

Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease (SPD) is a common surgical condition for which a multitude of surgical treatments have been described. The present review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel endoscopic procedure for the treatment of SPD. METHODS: An organized literature search was conducted. Electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for articles that assessed the endoscopic treatment for SPD. The main outcome parameters were failure of the technique including persistence and recurrence of SPD, postoperative complications and pain, time to complete healing, and time to return to work. RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 497 patients were included. Mean age of patients was 24.8 years. Mean operation time was 34.7 min. The procedure was performed as day-case surgery in all studies. The mean Visual analogue score of pain within the first week was 1.35. Failure of the technique was recorded in 40 (8.04%) patients, 20 (4.02%) had persistent SPD and 20 (4.02%) developed recurrence. The weighted mean failure rate of the technique was 6.3% (95% CI 3.6-9.1). Mean weighted complication rate was 1.1% (95% CI 0.3-2.4). Mean time to complete healing was 32.9 days and mean time to return to work was 2.9 days. CONCLUSION: The endoscopic treatment of pilonidal sinus is a promising and safe method of treatment of SPD. The main advantages of the endoscopic treatment as compared to conventional surgery are the minimal postoperative pain, quick healing, and short time to return to work and daily activities.

Outcome of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection with total mesorectal excision in treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision is the gold standard treatment of mid- and low-lying rectal cancer. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection has been suggested as an approach to decrease recurrence and improve survival. Our meta-analysis presented here aimed to review the current outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection and total mesorectal excision in comparison with total mesorectal excision alone. METHODS: A systematic literature search querying electronic databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We reviewed articles that reported the outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection combined with total mesorectal excision in comparison with total mesorectal excision alone. The main outcome measures were local recurrence, distant metastasis, overall and disease free-survival, and complications. RESULTS: This systematic review included 29 studies of 10,646 patients. Of those patients, 39.4% underwent total mesorectal excision with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. The median operation time for the lateral pelvic lymph node dissection + total mesorectal excision was significantly longer than total mesorectal excision alone (360 minutes versus 294.7 minutes, P = .02). Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection + total mesorectal excision was associated with higher odds of overall complications (odds ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-1.87, P < .001) and urinary dysfunction (odds ratio = 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-3.67, P = .008) than total mesorectal excision alone. Both groups had similar rates of male sexual dysfunction (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-2.79, P = .08), anastomotic leakage (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.69-1.93, P = .59), local recurrence (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.25, P = .79), distant metastasis (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-1.2, P = .72), overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.056, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.13, P = .13), and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.97-1.07, P = .37). CONCLUSION: Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection was not associated with a significant reduction of recurrence rates or improvement in survival as compared with total mesorectal excision alone; however, LPLND was associated with longer operation time and increased complication rate.

Comparative Study Between Trans-perineal Repair With or Without Limited Internal Sphincterotomy in the Treatment of Type I Anterior Rectocele: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Two types of rectocele exist; type I is characterized by relatively high resting anal pressures, whereas type II has lower resting anal pressures with associated pelvic organ prolapse. We compared trans-perineal repair (TPR) of rectocele with or without limited internal sphincterotomy (LIS) in the treatment of type I anterior rectocele. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Consecutive patients with anterior rectocele were evaluated for inclusion. Sixty-two female patients with type I anterior rectocele were randomized and equally allocated to receive TPR alone (group I) or TPR with LIS (group II). The primary outcome was the clinical improvement of constipation. Secondary outcomes were recurrence of rectocele, operative time, and postoperative complications including fecal incontinence (FI). RESULTS: Clinical improvement of constipation and patients' satisfaction were significantly higher in group II at 1 year of follow-up (93.3 versus 70 %). Constipation scores significantly decreased in both groups postoperatively with more reduction being observed in group II (11.1 ± 2.1 in group I versus 8 ± 1.97 in group II). Significant reduction in the resting anal pressure was noticed in group II. Recurrence was recorded in three (10 %) patients of group I and one patient of group II. No significant differences between the two groups regarding the operative time and hospital stay were noted. CONCLUSION: Adding LIS to TPR of type I rectocele achieved better clinical improvement than TPR alone. The only drawback of LIS was the development of a minor degree of FI, which was temporary in duration.