Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Introduction
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Risk Factors
- •Prevention
- •Chemoprophylaxis
- •Preoperative Chemoprophylaxis
- •Mechanical Prophylaxis
- •Early Mobilization
- •Extended Postoperative Chemoprophylaxis
- •Prophylactic IVC Filters
- •Diagnosis
- •Imaging
- •Treatment
- •Therapeutic Anticoagulation
- •Medication Options
- •IVC Filter Placement
- •References
- •1: Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism
- •Background
- •Epidemiology
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •Future Directions
- •Thromboembolic Events
- •Prehabilitation
- •Immunonutrition
- •Summary
- •References
- •3: Frailty
- •Frailty
- •Assessing Frailty
- •Interventions Following Frailty Assessment
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •(Neo)Adjuvant Therapy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Perforation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •6: Hysterectomy
- •Introduction
- •Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Tract Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Nerve Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •Prolapse Recurrence
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •7: Genital Tract Prolapse
- •Intraoperative Injuries
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Introduction
- •Injectable Therapy
- •An Overview
- •Complications
- •Retention
- •De Novo Irritative Voiding Symptoms
- •Mid-Urethral Slings (MUS)
- •An Overview
- •Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT)
- •Transobturator Tape (TOT)
- •Single-Incision Slings (SIS)
- •Complications
- •Mesh Erosion
- •Bladder Injury
- •Pain
- •Voiding Dysfunction
- •De Novo Irritative Voiding Symptoms
- •Recurrent Incontinence
- •Pubovaginal Slings (PVS)
- •An Overview
- •Complications
- •Bladder Perforation
- •Urinary Retention
- •De Novo Irritative Voiding Symptoms
- •Recurrent Incontinence
- •Retropubic Suspensions
- •An Overview
- •Complications
- •Voiding Dysfunction
- •Recurrent Incontinence
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •9: Urethral Diverticulectomy
- •Diagnosis
- •Surgical Management
- •Complications Following Urethral Diverticulectomy
- •Stress Urinary Incontinence
- •De Novo SUI
- •Urethrovaginal Fistula
- •Urethral Stricture
- •Recurrent Urethral Diverticulum
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •10: Segmental or Total Female Urethrectomy
- •Meatotomy
- •Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) After Partial Urethrectomy
- •Pubovaginal Slings (PVSs)
- •Pubovaginal Sling Erosion
- •References
- •11: Transurethral Bladder Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Bladder Perforation
- •Cystitis: Infection/Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)
- •Summary
- •References
- •12: Partial Cystectomy
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Workup
- •Surgical Technique
- •Complications
- •Oncological Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Surgical Approach
- •Complications by Category
- •Genitourinary
- •Infection
- •Gastrointestinal
- •Cardiopulmonary
- •Bleeding/Thromboembolic
- •Neurological
- •Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke
- •Delirium/Agitation
- •Miscellaneous
- •Lymphocele
- •Organ-Sparing Cystectomy (Uterus-, Fallopian Tube-, Ovary-Sparing)
- •Ovary Removal Risks (Bone Loss, Fracture Risk, Cardiac Events, Cognitive Decline, Mortality)
- •Vaginal Complications
- •References
- •14: Complications in Orthotopic Neobladders
- •Introduction
- •Early Postoperative Complications
- •Long-Term Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Ileocecal Reservoirs
- •Colonic Reservoirs
- •Ileal Reservoirs
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Stoma-Related Complications
- •Parastomal Hernia
- •Stomal Stenosis
- •Ureterointestinal Stricture
- •Infection
- •Enterocutaneous Fistula
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Conduit Necrosis
- •Metabolic Disturbances
- •Additional Thoughts
- •References
- •Background
- •Management
- •References
- •18: Ureteroscopy
- •Introduction
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Ureteral Wall Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Management
- •Early Postoperative Complications
- •Vascular Anomalies
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ureteral Stent Discomfort
- •Premature Labor
- •Ureteral Stent Migration
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Intravascular Stent Misplacement
- •Post-Obstructive Diuresis
- •Late Postoperative Complications
- •Ureteral Strictures
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Neglected Stents
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Perforation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Abscesses
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Strictures
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Retention
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •Cryptoglandular Pathophysiology—Abscess
- •Fistula-in-Ano
- •Fistulotomy
- •Seton Placement
- •Fistula Plugs/Fibrin Glue
- •Endorectal Advancement Flap (ERAF)
- •Minimally Invasive Approaches
- •Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) Therapy
- •Complex Advanced Fistula Therapy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •21: Fecal Incontinence
- •Treatment
- •Anal Insertion Devices
- •Vaginal Bowel Control Systems
- •Bulking Agents
- •Radio-Frequency Tissue Remodeling (SECCA®)
- •Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS)
- •Sacral Nerve Neuromodulation (SNM)
- •Surgical Sphincter Repair (Sphincteroplasty)
- •Ventral Mesh Rectopexy (VMR)
- •Other Treatments
- •References
- •General Background
- •Preoperative Procedural Considerations
- •General Abdominal Surgery Complications
- •Hemorrhagic Complications During Rectopexy
- •Mesh Complications
- •Discitis
- •Intra-Abdominal Collections/Seromas/Abscesses
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Bowel Obstruction
- •Anastomotic Leaks
- •Postoperative Pain
- •Perineal Surgery
- •Multicompartment Prolapse Repairs
- •Postoperative Constipation/Fecal Impaction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Vascular Injury
- •Bowel Injury
- •Management
- •Major Vascular Injury
- •Carbon Dioxide Embolism
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Incision Site Hernia
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Respiratory Mechanics
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Positioning
- •Trendelenburg Complications
- •Cardiopulmonary
- •Ocular Complications
- •Peripheral Nerve Injury
- •References
- •Background
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •The General Surgical Approach
- •Nerve-Sparing Surgery
- •Bladder Endometriosis
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Ureteral Endometriosis (UE)
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Ureteral Complications
- •Diagnosis
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Shaving Excision
- •Laparoscopic Disk Excision
- •Segmental Resection
- •Bowel Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intraoperative Complications
- •Early Postoperative Complications
- •Surgical Site Infections
- •Late Postoperative Complications
- •Anastomotic/Pouch Fistulas
- •Infertility
- •Sexual Dysfunction
- •Unhealed Perineal Wound
- •Entrapped Ovary (Inclusion Cyst)
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Genitourinary Complications
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Tract
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Neurologic Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •27: Cesarean Section
- •Introduction
- •Postpartum Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Unintended Hysterotomy Extension
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Scar Dehiscence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Inversion
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Post-Cesarean Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •28: Management of Ectopic Pregnancy and Surgical Considerations
- •Background
- •Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Prevention
- •Laparoscopy Versus Laparotomy
- •Recognition
- •Massive Hemorrhage, Hemodynamic Instability
- •Nondiagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Management
- •Hemoperitoneum
- •Nontubal Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Interstitial
- •Ovarian
- •References
- •29: Surgical Abortion
- •Introduction
- •Hemorrhage
- •Uterine Atony
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Abnormal Placentation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Acute Coagulopathy
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Cervical Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterine Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •30: Cesarean Hysterectomy
- •Introduction
- •Obstetric Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Surgical Site Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Massive Obstetric Hemorrhage
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy (DIC)
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urologic Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •31: Inguinal Lymphadenectomy, Radical Vulvectomy
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Lymphedema
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Nerve Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Duodenum
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Arterial Embolization
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Management
- •References
- •33: Radical Hysterectomy
- •Introduction
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Rectal Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bladder Dysfunction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Colorectal Dysfunction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Surgical Site Infection
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Sexual Dysfunction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Post-Operative Bleeding/Hematoma
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Urinary Tract Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Bowel Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Stricture
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •35: Anal Cancer
- •Introduction
- •Perineal Wound Infection/Dehiscence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Acute
- •Chronic
- •Pelvic Fluid Collections/Abscesses/Organ Space Infections
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Perineal Hernia
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Small Bowel Obstruction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Large Bowel Obstruction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Fecal Incontinence
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Rectovaginal Fistula
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Radiation Enteritis
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Sigmoid Stricture Formation
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •AL Requiring Operative Intervention
- •Endosponge
- •Local Repairs
- •Anastomotic Stricture
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anastomotic Bleeding
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Presacral Venous Bleeding
- •Background
- •Recognition
- •Prevention
- •Management
- •Low Anterior Resection Syndrome
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Treatment
- •References
- •37: Pelvic Radiation Therapy
- •Introduction
- •External Beam Radiation Therapy
- •Brachytherapy
- •Radiotherapy Toxicity
- •Toxicities by System
- •Bladder/Ureters/Urethra
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Small Bowel
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Colon/Rectum
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Anus/Vulva/Skin
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Uterus
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Ovaries
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vagina
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vascular/Lymphatics/Nerves
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •38: Pelvic Exenteration for Central Pelvic Cancer
- •Introduction
- •Pre-Operative Considerations
- •Intra-Operative Complications
- •WHO Checklist
- •Post-Operative Complications
- •Immediate
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Summary
- •References
- •Nerve Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Vascular Injury
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Hardware Failure/Mechanical Complications
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Pelvic Cancer Complications Involving Bone
- •Osteomyelitis
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Radiation Osteitis
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Radiation Associated Sarcomas
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •Wound Healing Considerations
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Recognition
- •Management
- •References
- •41: Pelvic Reconstructive Procedures
- •Background
- •Prevention
- •Preoperative
- •Intraoperative
- •Postoperative
- •Recognition
- •Fluid Collection
- •Infection
- •Partial or Total Flap Loss
- •Fistula
- •Donor Site Complications
- •Management
- •Fluid Collection
- •Infection
- •Partial or Total Flap Loss
- •Fistula
- •Donor Site Complications
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Index

19 Transanal Local Excisions andEndoluminal 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
specic 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,
articial 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 signicant
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 identication 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, difculty 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 supercial 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, etal. 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 andEndoluminal Approaches
203
12. Niikura R, Yasunaga H, Yamada A, etal. 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
difculty 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, etal. 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, etal. “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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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. Efcacy
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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. 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 andEndoluminal 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, etal. 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 andFistula
ValeryVilchez andAmyL.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 classied 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 sufcient 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 signicant 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 (modied Hanley procedure).
Of those undergoing abscess drainage,
30–70% of patients have a non-identiable 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 andFistula
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 inammation, 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 andFistula
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
forFistula-in-Ano
Management of a stula-in-ano entails a ne balance between the control of sepsis, denitive
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 identication 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 identied. This preserves a future opportunity to identify the stula tract without injury to the anal
canal or sphincter complex.
Fistulas are classied 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 signicant tension on
the involved tissues. Setons are used in cases of
complex stulas or signicant inammation. 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.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
