Published in:
01-09-2006 | Original Article
Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing drainage alone vs primary sphincter-cutting procedures for anorectal abscess–fistula
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 6/2006
Login to get accessAbstract
Background and aim
Concurrent definitive treatment of underlying fistulas from infected anal glands at the time when the anorectal abscesses are drained is controversial as this is associated with a higher incidence of faecal incontinence, failure and recurrence. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the merits of drainage alone vs primary sphincter-cutting procedures (which includes fistulotomy and fistulectomy) for anorectal abscess–fistula.
Methods
Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database searches identified all randomized controlled trials using the keywords: anorectal abscess, anal sepsis, drainage, fistulotomy, fistulectomy or surgery from 1966 to 2004. The outcome variables analysed were recurrence, faecal continence and wound-healing times.
Results
Five trials were considered suitable for the meta-analysis, with a total of 405 patients. Sphincter-cutting procedures for anorectal abscesses resulted in 83% reduction in recurrence rate [relative risk (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09–0.32, p<0.001]. However, there was a tendency to a higher risk of faecal incontinence to flatus and soiling when primary sphincter-cutting procedure was performed (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.75–8.06, p=0.140).
Conclusion
There is no conclusive evidence if simple drainage or sphincter-cutting procedure is better in the treatment of anorectal abscess–fistula.