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_1056_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
23 Мб
Скачать
386 K. E. Matzel and B. Bittorf
and the partial healing rate (no suppurative discharge or staining from the external opening, but opening not fully epithelialized and/or multiple external stula open­ings were present before treatment and at least one (but not all) stula opening closed without discharge at follow-up) 22.6% versus 16.7%. Follow-up assessments were obtained at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months. Deterioration of continence function was not observed (de la Portilla et al. 2019).
A randomized single-blinded clinical trial studied the safety and efcacy of ASCs plus brin glue for treatment of cryptoglandular stulae. After stula track prepara­tion (debridement and closure of the inner stula opening), 23 patients received 100 million ASCs plus intralesional brin glue and 21 patients intralesional brin glue installation alone (Garcia-Arranz et al. 2020). At 16 weeksfollow-up, the healing rate (complete reepithelialization of the external stual opening/s) was
30.4% with ACS and 42.8% in with brin glue alone. Respective numbers were
55.0% and 63.1% at 52 weeks, 50.0% and 26.3% at 2 years (P ¼ 0.129). Continence impairment was not observed.
Various attempts have been made to develop recommendations and guidelines. In 2015, the consensus statements of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICC R) on the use of brin glue found it to be well tolerated with low morbidity. The reported recurrence rates differ widely; in two randomized controlled trials, the healing rates are 40–50%; the absence of sepsis in observational studies is only 14% and with longer follow-up an increasing incidence of recurrence. SICCR stated that the use of biologically derived products has no statistically signicant advantage over traditional surgical treatment (Amato et al. 2015).
Based on the existing evidence (Level 1b), in 2017 the German S3 guidelines concluded that the initial positive results with brin glue were not conrmed in either long-term follow-up or more recent studies. The application may be indicated in special cases, but the recommendation was graded B with a strong consensus (Ommer et al. 2017).
The adoption rate of brin glue as a treatment for anal stula was stable between 1999 and 2012. However, in the same time period, reports indicated a decline in the success rate. Although the rates differed among reports from Europe. Australasia and North America, all demonstrated a decline over time (Kontovounisios et al. 2016).

3 Collagen Paste

The use of collagen for the treatment of anal stulae was introduced in 2010, and available data are limited (Table 3 for reports with more than 25 patients (Hammond et al. 2010; Bayrak and Altıntas 2018; Giordano et al. 2018; Schiano di Visconte et al. 2019; Brunner et al. 2019; Maternini et al. 2020; Vollebregt et al. 2021)). Studies are retrospective (N ¼ 3) and prospective (N ¼ 4), one multicenter. In one randomized study, collagen implant is compared to collagen-Fibrin glue (Hammond et al. 2010). In one study, equine collagen is used (Maternini et al. 2020). Fistula type varies (Types I to IV); also in one study, the use of collagen paste in rectovaginal
24 Anal Fistula: Glue and Paste Injection 387
Follow-up
(months)
Impaired continence
(%)
Recurrence
(%)
n.a. 0 29 (4–43)
Healing
(%)
54 (7/13)B:80 (12/15)
13 (11–15)
post 0.55 (ns)
39 0 12
53.5
24 (1–25)
(53/99)
scale score pre 1.10;
post 1.13 (ns)
30 patients
12 in
24 patients
ns not signicant
Crohns
Fistula
Table 3 Results of collagen paste installation in studies with 25 patients*
(%) Study design
II, III n.a. Prospective A:
type
2010 A:
Hammond
Study Year N
Collagen:13B:
(Hammond et al.
2010)
Collagen-
brin glue:
16
2018 31 I, II 0 Retrospective 77 23 FISI score pre 0.29,
Bayrak (Bayrak and
Altıntas 2018)
Multicenter
0 Retrospective 50 20 Continence grading
2018 100 I, II 0 Prospective
2019 46 II, III,
Giordano (Giordano
et al. 2018)
Schiano di Visconte
IV
(Schiano di Visconte
et al. 2019)
2019 30 II, RVF 40 Prospective 63 7 1/30 6in
Brunner (Brunner
et al. 2019)
2020 70 II 0 Prospective 79 21 0 12
Maternini
(equine collagen
[Salvecoll])
(Maternini et al.
2020)
2021 90 I, II 0 Retrospective 20 42 n.a. 30 (9–60)
Vollebregt
(Vollebregt et al.
2021)
aAdapted from references (Ommer et al. 2017; Vollebregt et al. 2021), n.a. not available, RVF rectovaginal stula,
388 K. E. Matzel and B. Bittorf
stula is described. In only one (Brunner et al. 2019) are patients with Crohn’s disease described.
The technique is rather uniform. Key elements are the removal of detritus and stula tissue by debridement of the stula tract and avoidance of protrusion of the paste after application through the stula openings. Repeated applications in case of initial treatment failure are reported.
Overall, the ve studies for collagen paste (porcine) application show highly variable outcomes, with healing rates between 20% and 77%. Follow-up is between 6 and 30 months. Continence function – addressed in 4/5 studies – appears not to be affected by the therapy.
In 2015, the consensus statements of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) commented only based on the data of collagen implant versus coll agen brin glue and the use of collagen suspension to augment rectal mucosal advance­ment ap and concluded that insufcient information does not allow any recom­mendation (Amato et al. 2015). In 2017, the German S3 guidelines (Ommer et al.
2017) found that, based on the sparse nature of the existing evidence, no recom-
mendation could be given (graded C with a strong consensus).

4 Conclusion

The appeals of sealant therapy for anal stula are the relative ease of application, the fact that anal sphincter lesions do not as a rule occur (thus lowering the risk of post therapeutic fecal incontinence), and that the treatment interferes little with potential further interventions. Existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness of stula closure with brin glue is low. Available information is heterogeneous with regard to indication, outcome monitoring, and assessment. Study methods vary widely. Randomized trials indicate that the clinical benetislimited. Regarding the use of collagen paste, data are fewer, more recent, and no more encouraging.
In comparison with other sphincter-sparing treatments, such as ap procedures or ligation of the intersphincteric stula tract (Cheung et al. 2021), healing rates of brin glue and collagen paste are less. Despite these limitations, the very low invasiveness lends this therapeutic approach theoretic support, and it will most likely still be considered before more invasive techniques. Future substances may result in better outcomes. The initial, often enthusiastic, appreciation of therapies with limited invasiveness reects the challenges of anal stula surgery and the fact that all of the currently available treatment options have limitations.

5 Cross-References

Classication of Anal Fistula and AbscessFistulectomyFistulotomy
24 Anal Fistula: Glue and Paste Injection 389
(LIFT) Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula TractUtility of Adding Sphincter Reconstruction to Fistulotomy/Fistulectomy

References

Abel ME, Chiu YS, Russell TR et al (1993) Autologous brin glue in the treatment of rectovaginal
and complex stulas. Dis Colon Rectum 36:447–449 Adams T, Yang J, Kondylis LA et al (2008) Long-term outlook after successful brin glue ablation
of cryptoglandular transsphincteric stula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1488–1490 Altomare DF, Greco VJ, Tricomi N (2010) Seton or glue for trans-sphincteric anal stulae: a
prospective randomized crossover clinical trial. Color Dis 13:82–86 Amato A, Bottini C, Nardi D et al (2015) Italian society of colorectal surgery. Evaluation and
management of perianal abscess and anal stula: a consensus statement developed by the Italian
Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR). Tech Coloproctol 19:595–606 Barillari P, Basso L, Larcinese A et al (2006) Cyanoacrylate glue in the treatment of ano-rectal
stulas. Int J Color Dis 21:791–794 Bayrak M, Altıntas Y (2018) Permacolcollagen paste injection in anal stula treatment: a
retrospective study with one-year follow-up. Adv Ther 35:1232–1238 Brunner M, Schneider I, Günther K et al (2019) Permacolcollagen paste for cryptoglandular and
Crohns anal stula. Tech Coloproctol 23:135–141 Cestaro G, De Rosa M, Gentile M (2014) Treatment of stula in ano with brin glue: preliminary
results from a prospective study. Minerva Chir 69:225–228 Cheung XC, FaheyT AC, Rogers CR et al (2021) Surgical management of idiopathic perianal
stulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg 38:104–119 Cintron JR, Park JJ, Orsay CP et al (1999) Repair of stulas-in-ano using autologous brin tissue
adhesive. Dis Colon Rectum 42:607–613 Cintron JR, Park JJ, Orsay CP et al (2000) Repair of stulas-in-ano using brin adhesive: long-term
followup. Dis Colon Rectum 43:944–949 de la Portilla F (2008) Evaluation of the use of BioGlue in the treatment of high anal stulas:
preliminary results of a pilot study: the author replies. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1156 de la Portilla F, Muñoz-Cruzado MVD, Maestre MVet al (2019) Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus
brin glue in cryptogenic stula-in-ano: a phase III single-center, randomized, double-blind
trial. Int J Color Dis 34:1113–1119 de Oca J, Millan M, Jimenez A et al (2011) Long-term results of surgery plus brin sealant for anal
stula. Color Dis 14:e12– de Parades V, Far HS, Etienney I et al (2010) Seton drainage and brin glue injection for complex
anal stulas. Color Dis 12:459–463 Ellis CN, Clark S (2006) Fibrin glue as an adjunct to ap repair of anal stulas: a randomized,
controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1736–1740 Garcia-Arranz M, Garcia-Olmo D, Herreros MD et al (2020) Autologous adipose-derived stem cells
for the treatment of complex cryptoglandular perianal stula: A randomized clinical trial with
long-term follow-up. Stem Cells Transl Med 9:295–301 Garcia-Olmo D, Herreros D, Pascual I et al (2009) Expanded adipose-derived stem cells for the
treatment of complex perianal stula: a phase II clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 52:79–86 Giordano P, Sileri P, Buntzen S et al (2018) Final results of a European, multicentre, prospective,
observational study of Permacolcollagen paste injection for the treatment of anal stula.
Color Dis 20:243–251 Gisbertz SS, Sosef MN, Festen S et al (2005) Treatment of stulas in ano with brin glue. Dig Surg
22:91–94 Hammond TM, Porrett T, Scott SM et al (2010) Management of idiopathic anal stula using cross-
linked collagen: a prospective phase 1 study. Color Dis 13:94–104 Herreros MD, Garcia-Arranz M, Guadalajara H et al (2012) Autologous expanded adipose-derived
stem cells for the treatment of complex cryptoglandular perianal stulas: a phase III randomized
e15
390 K. E. Matzel and B. Bittorf
clinical trial (FATT 1: Fistula Advanced Therapy Trial 1) and long- term evaluation. Dis Colon
Rectum 55:762–772 Hjortrup A, Moesgaard F, Kjaergard J (1991) Fibrin adhesive in the treatment of perianal stulas.
Dis Colon Rectum 34:752–754 Jain SK, Kaza RCM, Pahwa M et al (2008) Role of cyanoacrylate in the management of low stula
in ano: a prospective study. Int J Color Dis 23:255–358 Johnson EK, Gaw JU, Armstrong DN (2006) The comparison of brin glue and stula plug
application efcacy of anal stula plug vs. brin glue in closure of anorectal stulas. Dis
Colon Rectum 49:371–376 Jurczak F, Laridon JY, Raggaitin P et al (2004) Biological brin used in anal stulas: 31 patients.
Ann Chir 129:286–289 Kontovounisios C, Tekkis P, Tan E et al (2016) Adoption and success rates of perineal procedures
for stula-in-ano: a systematic review. Color Dis 18:441–458 Lindsey I, Smilgin-Humphreys MM, Cunningham C et al (2002) A randomized, controlled trial of
brin glue vs. conventional treatment for anal stula. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1608–1615 Maralcan G, Baskonus I, Aybasti N et al (2006) The use of brin glue in the treatment of stula-in-
ano: a prospective study. Surg Today 36:166–170 Maralcan G, Baskonus I, Gökalp A et al (2011) Long-term results in the treatment of stula-in-ano
with brin glue: a prospective study. J Korean Surg Soc 81:169–175 Maternini M, Guttadauro A, Mascagni D et al (2020) Non cross-linked equine collagen (Salvecoll-
E gel) for treatment of complex ano-rectal stula. Asian J Surg 43:401–404 Mishra A, Shah S, Nar A et al (2013) The role of brin glue in the treatment of high and low stulas
in ano. J Clin Diagn Res 7:876–879 Ommer A, Herold A, Berg E (2017) German S3 guidelines: anal abscess and stula (second revised
version). Langenbecks Arch Surg 402:191–201 Park JJ, Cintron JR, Orsay CP et al (2000) Repair of chronic anorectal stulae using commercial
brin sealant. Arch Surg 135:166–169 Patrlj L, Kocman B, Martinac M et al (2000) Fibrin glue-antibiotic mixture in the treatment of anal
stulae: experience with 69 cases. Dig Surg 17:77–80 Queralto M, Portier G, Bonnaud G et al (2010) Efcacy of synthetic glue treatment of high
crypoglandular stula-in-ano. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 34:477–482 Schiano di Visconte M, Braini A, Moras L et al (2019) Permacol collagen paste injection for
treatment of complex cryptoglandular anal stulas: an observational cohort study with a 2-year
follow-up. Surg Innov 26:168–179 Sentovich SM (2001) Fibrin glue for all anal stulas. J Gastrointest Surg 5:158–161 Singer M, Cintron J, Neldson R et al (2005) Treatment of stulas-in-ano with brin sealant in
combination with intra-adhesive antibiotics and/or surgical closure of the internal stula open-
ing. Dis Colon Rectum 48:799–808 Tyler KM, Aarons CB, Sentovich SM (2007) Successful sphincter-sparing surgery for all anal
stulas. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1535–1539 van der Hagen SJ, Baeten CG, Soeters PB et al (2011) Staged mucosal advancement ap versus
staged brin sealant in the treatment of complex perianal stulas. Gastroenterol Res
Pract:186350 van Koperen PJ, Wind J, Bemelman WA et al (2008) Fibrin glue and transanal rectal advancement
ap for high transsphincteric perianal stulas; is there any advantage? Int J Color Dis 23:
697–701 Vollebregt PF, Vander Mijnsbrugge GJ, Molenaar CBH et al (2021) Efcacy of Permacol injection
for perianal stulas in a tertiary referral population: poor outcome in patients with complex
stulas. Color Dis 23:2119–2126 Witte ME, Klaase JM, Gerritsen JJ et al (2007) Fibrin glue treatment for simple and complex anal
stulas. Hepato-Gastroenterology 54:1071–1073 Yeung JMC, Simpson JA, Tang S-W et al (2010) Fibrin glue for the treatment of stulae in ano – a
method worth sticking to? Color Dis 12:363–366

VAAFT

25
Video-Assisted Anal Fistula Treatment
Piercarlo Meinero
Contents
1 Introduction . ............... .................................................................. 392
1.1 VAAFT Story . . . .................................................................. ..... 392
1.2 The Fistuloscopeand the Fistuloscopy.......................................... 393
2 Surgical Equipment and Accessories ....................................................... 393
3 VAAFT Indications .......................................................................... 395
3.1 Preoperative Assessment .............................................................. 396
4 VAAFT Procedure ........................................................................... 396
4.1 Diagnostic Phase (Fistuloscopy) .......................... ............................ 397
4.2 Operative Phase ... . . . . ...... . . . . ....... . . . . ...... . . . . . ....... . . . . ...... . . . . ....... . . . . 401
5 Closure of the Internal Opening ............................................................ 403
5.1 Use of a Linear or Semicircular Stapler .............................................. 403
5.2 Advancement Flap .................................................................... 404
5.3 Use of a Bioabsorbable Mesh (Xenograft) ... ........................................ 405
5.4 Autologous Dermis Graft ................ ............................. ................ 406
5.5 Postoperative Management ........................................................... 407
6 Discussion . ..... . . . . ...... . . . . ....... . . . ..... . . . . . ...... . . . . ...... . . . . ...... . . . . ...... . . . . ... 408
7 Conclusions .................................................................................. 409
References ............................ ............................................... ............ 411
Abstract
Video-assisted anal stula treatment (VAAFT) is a fairly new sphincter-saving and minimally invasive surgical technique to treat complex anal stulas and their recurrences. The main characteristic of the procedure is the direct vision which differentiates it from any other surgical technique. VAAFT makes use of a particular optical device named Meineros Fistuloscope(manufactured by Karl Storz SE & Co. Kg. – Tuttlingen Germany) which allows to treat the anal stula from the inside. VAAFT has two phases: diagnostic and operative. Aims of
P. Meinero (*) Minimally-Invasive Proctology Center, Montallegro Clinic, Genoa, Italy
Beata VergineHospital, Mendrisio, Switzerland
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 C. Ratto et al. (eds.), Anal Fistula and Abscess, Coloproctology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76670-2_27
391
392 P. Meinero
the rst phase is to correctly identify the stula main tract and the stula internal opening, not forgetting any secondary tracts or abscess cavities, very common condition in complex cases. During the operative phase, all stula tracts and any possible abscess cavities are destroyed with a monopolar electrode passing through the operative channel of the stuloscope, always visually. The necrotic material is removed with an endo-brush, here too, under direct vision. This technique has many advantages compared to the other techniques: treating the stula under vision and from the inside, the risk to damage the sphincter appa­ratus is nil, no signicant wounds are made on the perianal area, the patient doesnt need painful dressings, and can manage his postoperative period at home. And more, the patient returns to work after a few days. However, the closure of the internal opening remains a weakness. This cannot be done with the stuloscope. So, in this chapter, Im showing at least four surgical methods to do it.

1 Introduction

Wanting to play the devil role, I would say that a big trouble clearly arises from the literature. Speaking about the anal stula surgical treatment, we can all see the wide difference between the real lifeand reported rates of success. We can say that the percentage of success after traditional surgery is very high. But if the reported percentage of success is really true, why are we struggling to nd other surgical methods to treat anal stulas?
And even more, it seems there are no consensus on assessment of surgical outcomes, and there is a poor surgeon assessment after the estimated wound healing. And more, we can nd only a few thorough studies focused on the patient assess­ment, and clearly arise that there is no a precise denition about the time to anal stula recurrence.
First of all, we have to assess the risk of incontinence above all in case of patient underwent surgery many times. Most of the times, we have to consider the pre­existing sphincter damage, scarring in the anal canal and the amount of sphincter preserved. But not less important is the patients frustration, so it is mandatory to consider his quality of life. To make the headache even worse, we are realizing that postoperative incontinence probably occurs more often than we realize, and patients dont like it. Postoperative incontinence is a well-known and feared complication of anal surgery. So, we think it is very important to know many surgical techniques and select all patients in order to decide the best method for each of them.
1.1 VAAFT Story
The VAAFT history starts on February 2006 at the Gaslini Childrens Institute in Genova. Dottor Meinero saw a pediatric urologist who was performing a cystoscopy
25 VAAFT 393
on a little patient, 6 years old, by a pediatric cystoscope. So, he had the idea to insert the same device into a complex anal stula. Three weeks later, he used the same pediatric cystoscope on a patient underwent surgery eight times by traditional techniques. His stula was considered to be so much complex that the most of surgeons proposed him to do an ostomy. As he was 43, the patient refused that and any other traditional procedures. So, he asked Doctor Meinero to propose him any other surgical option. In the next 5 years, many patients underwent VAAFT procedure. The rst paper was published on techniques in coloproctology in October 2011. According to Doctor Meinero, Karl Storz SE & Co.KG manufactured the Fistuloscope.
1.2 The Fistuloscopeand the Fistuloscopy
What characterizes the VAAFT procedure are two fundamental concepts: the direct visionand the endo-treatment.Undoubtedly, it deals with new concepts never adopted before. The rst aim is to be allowed to know the whole stula tree, branches and abscess cavities included, already at the beginning of the procedure. We could say “ a stula anatomy conrmation,” above all in the case of complex anal stula or recurrences. In other words, we perform a Fistuloscopy.But also the endo-treatmentcould be consider a winning choice. After all, many surgical procedures are now performed endoscopically, and it is reasonable translating this idea in the anal stula eld. Compared with other techniques, VAAFT is the only procedure that allows intraoperative visualization of the entire stula tract, possi­ble secondary tracts, and the internal stula opening from within the tract (Zelić et al., 2020). Albert Einstein said You will never solve t he problem with the mindsetthatcreatedit.” Exactly what we have to do is to view this subject from a different prospective.

2 Surgical Equipment and Accessories

The VAAFT kit includes the beroptic stuloscope (Fig.1a), a monopolar electrode (Fig.1b), a thin endo-brush (Fig.1c), an optical forceps (Fig.1d), and a sealing cap endoscopic seal.Any video tower can be used thanks to a universal adapter.
The stuloscope (Fig. 2) has an 8
3.3 4.7 mm. The operative sheath is 18 cm long, but it reduces his length to 14 cm when the handle is inserted. The stuloscope is rigid and not exible, in order to better win the surrounding tissue resistance during the maneuvers of the stuloscopy.
When the stula is longer, the handle can be removed in order to increase the sheath length. The handle also has a special mechanism which allows it to be turned
180
, a very important function in case it needs to be tangential to the surgical surface. Moreover, the handle also allows to provide the required force to straighten the stula tract when much curved. The stuloscope is connected rst to a cold light fountain (Karl Storz Power Led 300) with a beroptic light cable. It has two opposite
angled eyepiece and an outer diameter of
394 P. Meinero
Fig. 1 The VAAFT kit: the
beroptic stuloscope (a), monopolar electrode (b), the endo-brush (c), and the forceps (d) (Karl Storz Tuttlingen, Germany)
Fig. 2 The stuloscope
luer stopcocks, one of which is connected by a sterile tube to a 3000 ml bag of 1% glycine and mannitol solution, depending on the external stula opening position. The 1% glycine and mannitol solution allows a good irrigation and widening of the stula, and a good transmission of the current during cauterization of the stula internal wall. The stuloscope has two channels, optic and operative. Optic bers are set out into the optic channel, while through the operative channel pass both the irrigation solution and the surgical devices (obturator, forceps, electrode, and endo­brush). The obturator is inserted into the operative channel at the beginning of VAAFT procedure. It appears as a crescent shape on the lower part of the screen and must be kept in this position (6 oclock) in order to ensure a correct orientation during the internal stula exploration(diagnostic phase). The obturator is removed at the end of the diagnostic phase.
The monopolar electrode is 7 Fr. And 53 cm long. It is inserted into the
operative channel at the beginning of the operative phase, once the obturator is
25 VAAFT 395
removed. It is connected to a high-frequency surgical unit. The coagulation power is variable depending of the stula characteristics.
The endo-brush, passing through the operative channel, takes to clean the internal stula wall when the cauterization is completed. Always visually, it removes the necrotic material.
The optical forceps, also passing through the stuloscope, allows removing larger pieces of tissue and, in the meantime, improve the stula enlargement by progressively open his branches.
The sealing cap is very important. At the end of the diagnostic phase, the obturator is removed, and the sealing cap inserted in the back of the stuloscope. This doesnt allow the backow of the irrigation solution when the accessory devices are put or removed during the operative phase.

3 VAAFT Indications

VAAFT is indicated for treating complex anal stulas and their recurrences (Fig. 3).
Paradoxically, the longer the stula is, the easier it is to perform VAAFT procedure. In many cases, VAAFT represents an extreme surgical option when any other surgical techniques have failed. VAAFT is also a valid alternative in the treatment of anal stula in the pediatric population (Pini Prato et al., 2016), and in complex anal stulas in patients suffering from Crohn’s disease. In this respect, some studies demonstrate the feasibility, safety, and importantly an improvement in patient-reported outcomes in a series of patients undergoing VAAFT for complex Crohns anal stula. VAAFT reduces the main symptoms (pain and discharge) in patients with complex refractory anal stulas (Adegbola et al., 2018). As mentioned above, VAAFT is not indicated for treating simple stulas. But Indru Khubchandani
Fig. 3 A schematic representation of a trans­sphincteric anal stula