Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_759_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
47 Мб
Скачать
19 Transanal Local Excisions andEndoluminal Approaches
201

Recognition

Fecal incontinence can be detected through patient complaints. Associated symptoms may include altered bowel habits, such as increased frequency of bowel movements or urgency to defecate. Patients who complain about gas, solid or liquid stool incontinence, and frequent bath­room visits due to their inability to control their bowel movements might have fecal incontinence.

Management

Management of fecal incontinence should be individualized according to the underlying cause, type of operation, severity of symptoms, and patient preferences. It should be known that fecal incontinence is temporary in most cases. Initially, patients should be evaluated for sphincter dam­age and functions. Nonsurgical interventions such as dietary changes, bowel retraining, pelvic oor exercises (biofeedback therapy), and stool collection devices can be applied initially to improve symptoms and support continence in patients without sphincter injury.
Medical therapy aims to reduce stool fre­quency and improve stool consistency. While no specic medication has been proven to be univer­sally effective, antidiarrheal drugs such as loper­amide can be used to reduce fecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. Dietary supplementa­tion with bulking agents like psyllium or methyl­cellulose can improve stool consistency, especially in patients with low-volume, loose stools. In cases of fecal impaction, disimpaction and treatment of constipation are necessary.
If initial management fails, further evaluation with anorectal manometry and endorectal ultra­sound/magnetic resonance imaging should be conducted to identify any functional or structural abnormalities causing fecal incontinence. Biofeedback therapy can be considered for patients with weakness of the external anal sphincter or decreased ability to perceive rectal distension. It aims to retrain the pelvic oor and
abdominal wall muscles, improving coordination and sensation.
Injectable anal bulking agents, such as dextra­nomer stabilized in hyaluronic acid, may be used for passive fecal incontinence to enhance resting anal pressures. Anal sphincteroplasty, a surgical procedure, is reserved for patients who do not respond to initial management and have evidence of sphincter injury. Sacral nerve stimulation is an option for patients who do not respond to bio­feedback or sphincteroplasty, involving electrical stimulation of the sacral nerve roots to improve fecal continence. For patients with intractable symptoms who have failed nonsurgical and sur­gical management, colostomy, sphincteroplasty, articial anal sphincter, radio-frequency ablation, anal plugs can be an option.

Urinary Retention

Background

Urinary incontinence is a potential complication that might arise following transanal local exci­sions and endoluminal approaches. The surgical sites for these procedures are close to the urinary tract and often include the manipulation of pelvic tissues, which can disrupt normal voiding mecha­nisms and result in impaired bladder emptying. The incidence of urinary retention, a signicant contributing factor to urinary incontinence, ranges from 4.1% to 9.4% [58, 59]. Notably, the utilization of spinal anesthesia during these pro­cedures has been associated with a higher inci­dence of urinary retention. However, it is worth mentioning that endoscopic techniques, which can be performed under sedation, have demon­strated lower rates of urinary retention in colorec­tal lesions [60].

Prevention

Detail-oriented surgical techniques should be used to avoid injury to the urinary tract during procedures. Correct identication and careful
202
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
dissection of anatomical landmarks can minimize injury. In addition, appropriate patient selection and comprehensive preoperative evaluation may help identify patients at a high risk of urinary retention, leading to appropriate surgical man­agement. Sedation or general anesthesia may be preferred instead of spinal anesthesia to prevent urinary retention. Similarly, considering endo­scopic techniques may be advantageous due to their lower rates of urinary retention. Enhanced recovery practices such as early mobilization, not using a urinary catheter, or removing the catheter in the early postoperative period can aid in pre­serving the urinary tract [61]. Conservative mea­sures such as bladder training or pharmacological interventions to enhance bladder contractility may be attempted. Prophylactic alpha-adrenergic antagonists, such as tamsulosin, can also lower postoperative urinary retention [62].

Recognition

Patients may present with symptoms such as reduced urine output, difculty initiating or maintaining urination, or a sense of incomplete bladder emptying. Patients’ clinic examination and symptoms are important for diagnosis. Upon physical examination, the patient would demon­strate suprapubic tenderness and fullness.

Management

Prompt recognition and treatment of any under­lying causes, such as urinary tract infection or medication-related factors, are essential. The sur­gical site should be controlled in case of hema­toma, abscess, and perforation. More invasive interventions may be considered in the failure of conservative measures or in cases of persistent or recurrent urinary retention. These may include placement of a urethral catheter, suprapubic cath­eterization, or, in refractory cases, surgical proce­dures to relieve bladder outlet obstruction.

References

1. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B.A genetic model for colorec­tal tumorigenesis. Cell. 1990;61:759–67. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0092- 8674(90)90186- I.
2. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term pre­vention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–96. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMOA1100370.
3. US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson KW, Barry MJ, etal. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation state­ment. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965–77. Published cor­rection appears in JAMA. 2021 Aug 24;326(8):773.
4. Gorgun E, Benlice C, Abbas MA, Steele S.Experience in colon sparing surgery in North America: advanced endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal lesions. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:3114–21. https://doi.
org/10.1007/S00464- 018- 6026- 2.
5. Takamaru H, Saito Y, Yamada M, et al. Clinical impact of endoscopic clip closure of perforations dur­ing endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:494–502.e1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIE.2016.01.014.
6. Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, etal. Clinical out­come of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:343–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S00464- 009- 0562- 8.
7. Akintoye E, Kumar N, Aihara H, etal. Colorectal endo­scopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4:E1030–44.
https://doi.org/10.1055/S- 0042- 114774.
8. Sakamoto T, Mori G, Yamada M, etal. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a review. WJG. 2014;20:16153. https://doi.org/10.3748/
WJG.V20.I43.16153.
9. Rahmi G, Hotayt B, Chaussade S, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for super­cial rectal tumors: prospective evaluation in France. Endoscopy. 2014;46:670–6. https://doi.
org/10.1055/S- 0034- 1365810.
10. Shahini E, Passera R, Lo Secco G, Arezzo A. A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dis­section for colorectal sessile/non-polypoid lesions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022;31:835–47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2022.2032759.
11. Hong SN, Byeon JS, Lee BI, etal. Prediction model and risk score for perforation in patients undergo­ing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:98–108. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.GIE.2015.12.011.
19 Transanal Local Excisions andEndoluminal Approaches
203
12. Niikura R, Yasunaga H, Yamada A, etal. Factors pre­dicting adverse events associated with therapeutic colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia: a retrospective nationwide study in Japan. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84:971–982.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
GIE.2016.05.013.
13. Mizushima T, Kato M, Iwanaga I, et al. Technical difculty according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:133–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S00464- 014- 3665- 9.
14. Nivatvongs S. Complications in colonoscopic pol­ypectomy. An experience with 1,555 polypectomies. Dis Colon Rectum. 1986;29:825–30. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02555356.
15. Jung D, Youn YH, Jahng J, etal. Risk of electrocoagula­tion syndrome after endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colon and rectum. Endoscopy. 2013;45:714–7.
https://doi.org/10.1055/S- 0033- 1344555.
16. Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah J, etal. “Underwater” EMR without submucosal injection for large ses­sile colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1086–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
GIE.2011.12.022.
17. Uedo N, Nemeth A, Johansson GW, etal. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions. Endoscopy. 2015;47:172–4. https://doi.
org/10.1055/S- 0034- 1390749.
18. Daram SR, Tang SJ, Wu R, To SDF.Benchtop test­ing and comparisons among three types of through­the- scope endoscopic clipping devices. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1521–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S00464- 012- 2679- 4.
19. Otake Y, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, etal. New closure tech­nique for large mucosal defects after endoscopic sub­mucosal dissection of colorectal tumors (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:663–7.
20. Banno S, Nishizawa T, Kinoshita S, Mori H, Uraoka T. Endoscopic mucosa-submucosal clip closure method. Endoscopy. 2017;49:E307–8.
21. Nomura T, Kamei A, Sugimoto S, Oyamada J.New closure method for a mucosal defect after endoscopic submucosal dissection—the clip-on-clip closure method. Endoscopy. 2018;50:547–8.
22. Yamasaki Y, Harada K, Oka S, et al. Feasibility of underwater clip closure for large mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Digestion. 2019;99:327–32.
23. Nomura T, Sugimoto S, Temma T, Oyamada J, Ito K, Kamei A. Suturing techniques with endoscopic clips and special devices after endoscopic resec­tion. Dig Endosc. 2023;35(3):287–301. https://doi.
org/10.1111/den.14427.
24. Kumar S, Youn YH, Lee JH.Life on a knife edge: the optimal approach to the management of per­forations during endoscopic submucosal dissec­tion (ESD). Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;14(10):965–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/174741
24.2020.1791085.
25. Lee SP, Sung IK, Sung IK.A randomized controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of electrocoagulation syndrome after colorectal endo­scopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:349–357.e2.
26. Nakajima T, Saito Y, Tanaka S, etal. Current status of endoscopic resection strategy for large, early colorec­tal neoplasia in Japan. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3262–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S00464- 013- 2903- X.
27. Hu X, Xu QW, Liu WH. Endoscopic loop string­assisted clip suturing closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection in the sig­moid colon. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115:15. https://
doi.org/10.14309/AJG.0000000000000505.
28. Yan B, Shi RH, Feng YD, Di ZH.Evaluating long­term attachment of a novel endoclip in porcine stomachs: a prospective study of initial deployment success and clip retention rates at different regions of the stomachs. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1100–6. https://
doi.org/10.1007/S00464- 015- 4305- 8.
29. Dionigi B, Ozgur I, Sapci I, Church J, Gorgun E.Complete occlusion of lumen after over-the-scope­clip deployment during ESD: a lesson learned - a video vignette. Color Dis. 2022;24(5):664. https://doi.
org/10.1111/codi.1605.
30. Repici A, Hassan C, De Paula PD, et al. Efcacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dis­section for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review. Endoscopy. 2012;44:137–50. https://doi.
org/10.1055/S- 0031- 1291448.
31. Li R, Cai S, Sun D, et al. Risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:6583–90.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S00464- 020- 08156- 5.
32. Ahmed Y, Othman M. EMR/ESD: techniques, complications, and evidence. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2020;22(8):39. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S11894- 020- 00777- Z.
33. Albéniz E, Enguita-Germán M, Gimeno-García AZ, et al. The answer to “when to clip” after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection based on a cost- effectiveness analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116:311–8. https://doi.org/10.14309/
AJG.0000000000000943.
34. Spadaccini M, Albéniz E, Pohl H, etal. Prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic resection pre­vents bleeding of large, proximal polyps: meta­analysis of randomized trials. Gastroenterology. 2020;159:148–158.e11. https://doi.org/10.1053/J.
GASTRO.2020.03.051.
35. Lee HS, Jeon SW, Kwon YH, et al. Prophylactic endoscopic coagulation to prevent delayed post­EMR bleeding in the colorectum: a prospective ran­domized controlled trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90:813–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
GIE.2019.05.039.
36. Takizawa K, Oda I, Gotoda T, etal. Routine coagula­tion of visible vessels may prevent delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection--an analysis
204
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
of risk factors. Endoscopy. 2008;40:179–83. https://
doi.org/10.1055/S- 2007- 995530.
37. Kawashima K, Hikichi T, Fujiwara T, et al. Delayed perforation after endoscopic submucosal dissection for mucosal colon cancer: a conservatively treated case. Fukushima J Med Sci. 2018;64:157–62. https://
doi.org/10.5387/FMS.2018- 04.
38. Takamaru H, Goto R, Yamada M, etal. Predicting and managing complications following colonoscopy: risk factors and management of advanced interventional endoscopy with a focus on colorectal ESD. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17:929–36. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/17434440.2020.1819788.
39. Zhang QS, Han B, Xu JH, Gao P, Shen YC. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with colorectal lesions undergoing endoscopic resection. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(15):4715–21. https://
doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i15.4715. PMID: 25914483;
PMCID: PMC4402321.
40. Muro T, Higuchi N, Imamura M, Nakagawa H, Honda M, Nakao K, Izumikawa K, Sasaki H, Kitahara T. Post-operative infection of endoscopic submu­cosal dissection of early colorectal neoplasms: a case- controlled study using a Japanese database. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2015;40(5):573–7. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcpt.12313. Epub 2015 Aug 6. PMID:
26249257.
41. Zheng L, Jiang L, Li D, Chen L, Jiang C, Xie L, Zhou L, Huang J, Liu M, Wang W. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing endoscopic muco­sal resection for 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized prospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(50):e31440. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MD.0000000000031440.
42. Gorgun E, Rencuzogullari A, Ozben V, et al. An effective bundled approach reduces surgical site infections in a high-outlier colorectal unit. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(1):89–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/
DCR.0000000000000929.
43. O’Malley GF, Dominici P, Giraldo P, et al. Routine packing of simple cutaneous abscesses is painful and probably unnecessary. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(5):470–3. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1553- 2712.2009.00409.x.
44. Mocanu V, Dang JT, Ladak F, et al. Antibiotic use in prevention of anal stulas following incision and drainage of anorectal abscesses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2019;217:910.
45. Sözener U, Gedik E, Kessaf Aslar A, etal. Does adju­vant antibiotic treatment after drainage of anorectal abscess prevent development of anal stulas? A ran­domized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi­center study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:923.
46. Ghahramani L, Minaie MR, Arasteh P, etal. Antibiotic therapy for prevention of stula in-ano after incision and drainage of simple perianal abscess: a randomized single blind clinical trial. Surgery. 2017;162:1017.
47. Gaertner WB, Burgess PL, Davids JS, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons
clinical practice guidelines for the Management of Anorectal Abscess, stula-in-Ano, and Rectovaginal stula. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65:964.
48. Liu S, Tian Z, Jiang Y, etal. Endoscopic ultrasound­guided drainage to abdominal abscess: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Access Surg. 2022;18:489–96. https://doi.org/10.4103/JMAS.
JMAS_349_21.
49. Ozgur I, Lee GC, Gorgun E. Management of rec­tal stricture after en-bloc endoscopic submucosal dissection for a circumferential lateral spreading tumor. Dis Colon Rectum. 2023;66:E168. https://doi.
org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000002611.
50. Abe S, Sakamoto T, Takamaru H, et al. Stenosis rates after endoscopic submucosal dissection of large rectal tumors involving greater than three quarters of the luminal circumference. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5459–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S00464- 016- 4906- X.
51. Ohara Y, Toyonaga T, Tanaka S, etal. Risk of stric­ture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for large rectal neoplasms. Endoscopy. 2016;48:62–70. https://
doi.org/10.1055/S- 0034- 1392514.
52. Hayashi T, Kudo S, Miyachi H, etal. Management and risk factor of stenosis after endoscopic submuco­sal dissection for colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:358–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
GIE.2016.11.032.
53. Yamashita S, Kato M, Fujimoto A, etal. Inadequate steroid injection after esophageal ESD might cause mural necrosis. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7:E115.
https://doi.org/10.1055/A- 0781- 2333.
54. Arezzo A, Arolfo S, Allaix ME, etal. Transanal endo­scopic microsurgery for giant circumferential rectal adenomas. Color Dis. 2016;18:897–902. https://doi.
org/10.1111/CODI.13279.
55. Dolezel R, Walterová B, Juhas S, etal. Fixation of biomaterial to metallic stent and xation of stents after circular endoscopic dissection in the esophagus on an animal model. Rozhl Chir. 2018;97:208–13.
56. van Heinsbergen M, Leijtens JW, Slooter GD, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Konsten JL.Quality of life and bowel dysfunction after transanal endoscopic micro­surgery for rectal cancer: one third of patients expe­rience major low anterior resection syndrome. Dig Surg. 2020;37:39–46.
57. Khomyakov E, Chernyshov S, Fomenko O, Rybakov E.Does transanal endoscopic microsurgery affect reic­tal function? Ann Coloproctol. 2022;39(4):326–31.
https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00220.0031.
Published online ahead of print, 2022 Nov 14.
58. Altaf K, Slawik S, Sochorova D, et al. Long-term outcomes of open versus closed rectal defect after transanal endoscopic microscopic surgery. Color Dis. 2021;23(11):2904–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/
codi.15830.
59. Mehraj A, Saqib N, Wani R, Chowdri N, Parray F, Khan M. Transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS): safety and feasibility for the resection of
19 Transanal Local Excisions andEndoluminal Approaches
205
benign and malignant lesions of the rectum. Turk J Surg. 2021;37(1):6–12. Published 2021 Mar 22.
https://doi.org/10.47717/turkjsurg.2021.5057.
60. Naughton AP, Ryan ÉJ, Bardon CT, etal. Endoscopic management versus transanal surgery for early pri­mary or early locally recurrent rectal neoplasms-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis. 2020;35(12):2347–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00384- 020- 03715- 7.
61. Hung LY, Benlice C, Jia X, et al. Outcomes after early versus delayed urinary bladder catheter removal
after Proctectomy for benign and malignant disease in 2,429 patients: an observational cohort study. Surg Infect. 2021;22(3):310–7. https://doi.org/10.1089/
sur.2020.159.
62. Gao B, Zhang D, Wang Y, Wang Z, Wang Z. The effect of tamsulosin in post-operative urinary reten­tion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Naunyn Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol. 2023;396(3):441–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00210- 022- 02343- y.
Perianal Abscess andFistula
ValeryVilchez andAmyL.Lightner
20

Cryptoglandular Pathophysiology—Abscess

Cryptoglandular abscess and stula-in-ano arise from glands at the dentate line, between the anal papilla and the columns of Morgagni. These glands extend into the submucosal space, internal sphincter, intersphincteric space, and external sphincter. When bacteria and debris are entrapped in these glands, infection begins and subse­quently tracks along the course of the gland and/ or path of least resistance from its origin (most likely the perianal skin) [1].
Anorectal abscesses may originate from mul­tiple anatomical locations of the pelvis and are then classied on the basis of these locations into perianal, ischiorectal, intersphincteric, and supra­levator (Fig. 20.1). A horseshoe abscess is an abscess that courses posteriorly through the deep postanal space to involve the bilateral ischiorec­tal spaces.
Perianal and ischiorectal abscesses represent the most common anorectal abscesses. Ramanujam et al. described in their series that perianal abscesses accounted for 42.7%, ischio-
V. Vilchez Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
A. L. Lightner (*) Department of General Surgery, Scripps Clinic Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA e-mail: lightner.amy@scrippshealth.org
rectal for 22.7%, intersphincteric for 21.4%, and supralevator for 7.3% of all anorectal abscesses [2]. Perianal and ischiorectal abscesses typically present with perianal pain, swelling, uctuance, and potential spontaneous drainage of purulent liquid. Intersphincteric abscesses are character­ized by intense pain but typically do not have external manifestations. Supralevator abscesses may arise from the superior extension of a cryp­toglandular origin but may also be associated with an intra-abdominal process, including diver­ticular disease, Crohn’s disease, or malignancy.
History and physical examination are typi­cally sufcient to diagnose perianal and ischio­rectal abscesses. Imaging adjuncts including CT scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), endoanal ultrasound, and stulogram are not gen­erally indicated for uncomplicated disease or for patients without signicant comorbidities with an easily recognizable diagnosis. Imaging would be valuable in some instances in patients with an isolated intersphincteric abscess or in those who have a complicated history, including malig­nancy, radiation, Crohn’s disease, prior anorectal operations, trauma, or a complex disease (horse­shoe and/or a supralevator component).
Primary treatment for an anorectal abscess is timely incision and drainage. Perianal and ischiorectal abscesses should be drained through the skin overlying the area of uctu­ance. If the abscess cavity is large, the incision should be made in the area closest to the anal
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 M. Hoffman et al. (eds.), Major Complications of Female Pelvic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66772-5_20
207
208
Supralevator
Intersphincteric
Ischioanal
Perianal
Submucosal
Supralevator extension
Fig. 20.1 Schematic representation of a cross-sectional image showing potential spaces of abscess formation
verge. If a stula-in-ano develops post-abscess drainage, the stula tract will be as short as fea­sible [3]. Intersphincteric abscesses typically require internal drainage at the dentate line via sphincterotomy if there is no external area of uctuance.
The route of drainage is particularly important for supralevator abscesses to avoid iatrogenic creation of a suprasphincteric stula. Those that arise from an intra-abdominal source should be drained transabdominally or transrectally. Those that arise from superior extension via the inter­sphincteric space should be drained transrectally. Those that arise from a superior extension of an ischiorectal abscess should be drained transcuta­neously (Fig.20.2).
Horseshoe abscess drainage requires a thor­ough understanding of the anatomy. To ade­quately drain these abscesses, there must be both bilateral transcutaneous ischiorectal drainage and posterior drainage after division of the anococ­cygeal ligament to access the deep postanal space (Hanley procedure) (Fig.20.3). For those arising from a perianal abscess extending through the postanal space, posterior stulotomy with seton
V. Vilchez and A. L. Lightner
Don’t
Drain
Fig. 20.2 Schematic representation of an appropriate drainage route for a supralevator abscess
Drain
Don’t
placement has also been described for adequate drainage (modied Hanley procedure).
Of those undergoing abscess drainage, 30–70% of patients have a non-identiable stula tract at the time of drainage and 30–35% will develop a mature stula tract [4]. In the setting of
Posterior drainage
er
Co
20 Perianal Abscess andFistula
unter drainage
Fig. 20.3 Schematic representation of horseshoe stula drainage via the Hanley procedure
209
External sphinct
Internal sphincter
Counter drainage
Dentate line
acute inammation, there is a risk of creating a false passage and/or unnecessary sphincter divi­sion (increasing the risk of incontinence post­procedure) while attempting to identify a stula tract. Thus, given the potential risks, it is not gen­erally recommended to manage this tract at the time of abscess drainage.
Incision and drainage of an abscess is pre­ferred when the patient is rst evaluated in the clinic. This reduces any unnecessary delay in time to controlling sepsis. If performed in the clinic, one must ensure that there is an adequate setup and that the patient is amenable to proceed under local anesthesia. Complex abscesses or those associated with tissue necrosis and/or patients who are intolerant of a bedside proce­dure should be managed in the operating room. Packing is not recommended as wounds left unpacked are associated with less pain and faster healing [5]. For large or deep abscess cavities, a catheter (such as a mushroom-type catheter) can be placed in the cavity to promote drainage and minimize the size of the external incision. Antibiotics are recommended for those with extensive cellulitis or signs of sepsis or in immu­nocompromised patients, but routine antibiotics are not recommended [6].

Fistula-in-Ano

Patients with stula-in-ano present with a wide range of complaints, including hemorrhoids, a history of anorectal abscess with spontaneous drainage or prior surgical drainage, intermittent perianal bleeding from an external opening, and cyclical perianal pain and swelling that is relieved with expression of uid. Given the wide variety of presenting symptoms, a good physical exami­nation is critical for appropriately diagnosing and guiding medical decision-making.
The most common etiology of stula-in-ano is cryptoglandular progression. Fistulas are catego­rized based on the degree of sphincter involve­ment with varying incidences, including subcutaneous/submucosal (2–3%), intersphinc­teric (24–45%), transsphincteric (30–60%), and suprasphincteric (2–20%) [7].
Subcutaneous or submucosal stulas begin at the dentate line and course deep into the anoderm without sphincter involvement. Intersphincteric stulas cross the internal sphincter and then have a tract to the perianal skin and do not involve any external anal sphincter muscles. Transsphincteric stulas track from the internal opening at the dentate line via the internal and external anal
210
c. Supra-sphincteric anal fistulad. Extra-sphincteric anal fistula
V. Vilchez and A. L. Lightner
sphincters to the perianal skin or perineum. Those involving 30% or less of the external sphincter are considered low transsphincteric stulas, and those involving more than 30% of the external sphincter are named high transsphincteric stu­las. It is important to distinguish in the decision making of proceeding with a sphincter-sparing technique due to the risk of developing postop­erative fecal incontinence in the setting of a high transsphincteric stula. Suprasphincteric stulas course superiorly into the intersphincteric space over the top of the puborectalis muscle and then descend through the ischiococcygeus muscle into the ischiorectal fossa and the perianal skin.
Extrasphincteric stulas pass from the peri­neal skin through the ischiorectal fossa and leva­tor muscles and then into the rectum and reside completely outside of the external sphincter com­plex. These stulas arise from intra-abdominal sources such as diverticular disease and/or malig-
nancy, are associated with different underlying etiologies such as Crohn’s disease, or may arise from iatrogenic injury or inappropriate drainage of a supralevator abscess (Fig.20.4).
Neither the location of the initial abscess cav­ity nor the location of the external opening of a stula tract can predict the degree of sphincter involvement, but the internal opening can be pre­dicted for cryptoglandular stulas based on the location of the external opening following Goodsall’s principle. Based on this principle, any external opening involving the posterior half of the anoderm (posterior to the transverse anal line) will curve medially to involve an internal open­ing in the posterior midline. External openings involving the anterior half of the anal verge (ante­rior to the transverse anal line) will correspond to a radially located internal opening. This is most accurate for posterior and intersphincteric stu­las, 91% and 93%, respectively, compared to
a. Inter-sphincteric anal fistulab. Transphincteric anal fistula
Fig. 20.4 Schematic representation of the anatomy of a stula-in-ano
20 Perianal Abscess andFistula
211
anterior and transsphincteric stulas, 69% and 68%, respectively [8].
Routine use of diagnostic imaging is not typi­cally necessary for patients with an anorectal stula. However, imaging may be considered in selected patients with an occult anorectal abscess, a recur­rent or complex anal stula, immunosuppression, or anorectal Crohn’s disease [6]. The imaging modal- ity selected is highly dependent on surgeon prefer­ence, access of care to certain imaging modalities, and, in case of ultrasound, surgeon experience. Overall, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the preferred imaging modality to characterize anal stulas given its accuracy, reproducibility, non­instrumentation of the stula tract, and ability to localize abscesses and stula anatomy considering the surrounding anatomy.
Treatment Strategies forFistula-in-Ano
Management of a stula-in-ano entails a ne bal­ance between the control of sepsis, denitive repair of the stula without disease recurrence, and preservation of continence. The rst step is an anorectal examination under anesthesia to ensure that all sepsis has been drained and evaluate the stula, delineate the anatomy, and characterize the degree of sphincter involvement. Consideration to avoid any advanced repair beyond stulotomy should be given if there is evidence of any sepsis.
Anorectal examination under anesthesia should begin with a digital rectal exam using a circumferential anoscope both to identify the internal opening and rule out concurrent or alter­native anal canal pathologies. The external open­ing is gently probed with a stula probe, and the probe is passed along the tract until it communi­cates with the internal opening with care to avoid creation of a false passage. Intraoperative hydro­gen peroxide or methylene blue may be injected into the external stula opening to aid in identi­cation of the exact site of the internal opening [9]. Alternatively, intraoperative ultrasound with and without hydrogen peroxide contrast enhance­ment may be used. However, as with any ultra­sound modality, endoanal ultrasound is highly user-dependent. Occasionally, the surgeon should
abandon the examination under anesthesia with stula repair if an internal opening is not identi­ed. This preserves a future opportunity to iden­tify the stula tract without injury to the anal canal or sphincter complex.
Fistulas are classied as simple or complex based on the risk of incontinence after a sphincter­dividing procedure. Complex stulas are described as involving more than 30% of the external sphincter, anterior location in a female, multiple tracts, recurrent stula, preexisting baseline incontinence, history of radiation, and Crohn’s disease [6]. Simple stulas can be treated with sphincter-dividing surgery at the time of ini­tial presentation, while all others should undergo a sphincter-preserving procedure, typically start­ing with placement of a seton.

Fistulotomy

A stulotomy is generally safe in appropriately selected simple stulas with recurrence rates less than 10% and incontinence rates between 0 and 37% [10, 11]. At the time of exam under anesthe­sia, a stulotomy is performed by laying open the stula tract to allow complete and adequate drainage. The tract is debrided with electrocau­tery or curetting. Marsupialization of the wound edges has been shown to decrease the overall wound size, shorten the time to healing, and reduce postoperative bleeding [12]. Concomitant stulectomy is not recommended due to the risk of increased wound size, postoperative sphincter defect, and increased healing time.

Seton Placement

Setons are characterized as either draining setons or cutting setons. A draining seton is secured loosely to itself such that there is no signicant tension on the involved tissues. Setons are used in cases of complex stulas or signicant inammation. The two main goals of seton placement include sepsis control and maturation of the stula tract.
A cutting seton is placed similarly to a drain­ing seton, but it is secured tightly to itself with tension and compression on the involved tissues.