Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula Tract Versus Rectal Advancement Flap in the Treatment of Complex Anal Fistula
NCT ID: NCT05263661
Last Updated: 2022-03-02
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
UNKNOWN
Clinical Phase
PHASE3
Total Enrollment
72 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2013-01-01
Study Completion Date
2023-01-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Objective: Rectal advancement flap (RAF) is currently considered the gold standard in the treatment of complex anal fistula (CAF). Clinical trials are a priority given the few consistent results available with level 1 evidence. We compare the results of two conservative sphincter techniques: ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) versus RAF.
Material and Method: A controlled, randomised clinical trial is conducted in patients operated between 2013 and 2016 in Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofia, Murcia, Spain. The primary objective was to evaluate relapse at 12 months of follow-up, and the secondary objectives were post-op anal continence (Wexner), post-operative complications (haematoma, infection of surgical site, suture dehiscence), duration of surgery and hospitalisation. Post-operative controls 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.
Material and Method: A controlled, randomised clinical trial is conducted in patients operated between 2013 and 2016 in Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofia, Murcia, Spain. The primary objective was to evaluate relapse at 12 months of follow-up, and the secondary objectives were post-op anal continence (Wexner), post-operative complications (haematoma, infection of surgical site, suture dehiscence), duration of surgery and hospitalisation. Post-operative controls 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula Tract (LIFT) Versus LIFT-plug Procedure for Anal Fistula Repair
NCT01478139
Anorectal Fistula
Extracellular Matrix Alteration
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula Tract (LIFT) Procedure Versus Use of an Anal Fistula Plug for Anal Fistula Repair
NCT00830661
Anal Fistula
UNKNOWN
NA
Rerouting Seton Versus LIFT for Complex Anal Fistula
NCT04616911
Anal Fistula
UNKNOWN
NA
Treatment of Anal Fistulas Advancement Flap
NCT01042821
Anal Fistula
COMPLETED
NA
Transsphincteric Fistula Management Using LIFT and MAF
NCT06616662
Perianal Fistula
COMPLETED
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Material and method
Design:
Phase III, single centre, randomised, open-label, parallel group trial controlled with active comparator, with blind evaluation of results by a non-commercial third party. This study was conducted in 72 patients who had undergone complex anal fistula surgery and met the inclusion criteria.
The study was conducted by the Colo proctology Unit of the General and Digestive Surgery Department of Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofia, Murcia, Spain, from February 2013 to June 2016, and approved by the hospital's Independent Ethics Committee (IEC). The study was conducted pursuant to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (Seoul, October 2008) and the Good Clinical Practice (GP) standards of the European Economic Community's task force on the efficacy of medicinal substances (1990) and all legislation currently applicable in Spain (Royal Decree 223/2004 of 6 February).
Patients with a diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of anal fistula were referred to the Coloproctology Office. At the first visit, demographic data and a clinical history was obtained, followed by a physical examination of the anal region, with rigid anoscopy, ordering an endoanal ultrasound. At a second visit, if the diagnosis of complex anal fistula was confirmed, after providing information about the study, the patient was invited to participate, signed the consent form, and underwent the pre-operative Wexner scale. Patients were allocated a randomisation code for LIFT or RAF on the day of surgery. After surgery, controls were performed on days 7 and 14, by means of a symptoms diary to be completed by each patient, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the surgery, with the Wexner scale calculated in the last control of each patient.
Complex anal fistula was defined as a fistula at risk of affecting continence involving more than 30% of the sphincteric apparatus. Infection of surgical site at or near the incision in the 30 days following surgery (28). Haematoma was defined as accumulation of blood in the surgical area, with bluish or violet colouring of the affected area; surgical wound dehiscence was defined as the spontaneous separation of the edges of the wound, in the absence of surgical site infection.
The inclusion criteria were patient diagnosed with transsphincteric (medium or high) or suprasphincteric cryptoglandular anal fistula, over 18 years of age, with no abscess at the time of surgery, who agreed to participate and signed the informed consent form, and was capable transsphincteric understanding and following study instructions. The exclusion criteria were minor patient, diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of, Crohn's disease, malignant anal tumour, tuberculosis or suppurative hidradenitis, a history of radiotherapy of the ano-perineal region, language difficulties that prevent comprehension of the study, or refusal to participate.
Each patient's data were collected in the case report form and transferred to a database for their statistical analysis by an analyst unrelated to the study, preserving their anonymity and the treatment group to which they belonged.
Study objectives:
The primary objective was to show the non-inferiority in therapeutic efficacy of LIFT versus RAF in the surgical treatment of CAF. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group without fistula recurrence 12 months after surgery.
The secondary objectives were to show the non inferiority of LIFT versus RAF in therapeutic safety:
* Evaluating functionality, both before and after surgery, in both treatment groups, through anal continence, using the Wexner scale.
* Comparing post-operative complications in both treatment groups: infection of surgical site, haematoma and surgical wound dehiscence.
* Comparing time to fistula relapse in both treatment groups, by a survival analysis.
* Analysing hospital management factors (duration of surgery and hospitalisation) in both treatment groups.
Randomisation and surgeries:
The subjects were randomised 1:1 to receive LIFT or RAF surgery. Patient randomisation was by randomisation in balanced six-cell blocks; the sequence was custodied by the Teaching Secretary, unrelated to the study. The surgeon requested each patient's randomisation code on the day of surgery. LIFT or RAF.
The patients were operated by three surgeons from the Coloproctology Unit, whose learning curve was based on unifying experimental technique (LIFT) criteria in six patients before the start of the study. All the surgeries used epidural anaesthesia.
* Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT): jackknife position. Location of IFO by injecting a diluted (1/3) solution of hydrogen peroxide through the external fistula orifice (EFO). Opening of the fistula trajectory with a stylus. Curved 2.5 cm incision in the intersphincteric space until trajectory is skeletalised, ligation of internal and external sphincter with 3/0 single thread polyglecaprone 25 absorbable suture (MonocrylTM Plus®), exeresis of the trajectory between the ligations with cold scalpel. Cleansing of distal part with curette and enlargement of the external fistula orifice (EFO). Closure of the muscular intersphincteric plane with loose stitches of 3/0 polyglecaprone 25 single-thread absorbable suture (MonocrylTM Plus®). Closure of intersphincteric skin with simple plaited polyglycolic acid absorbable sutures (SSA90®).
* Rectal advancement flap (CAR): jackknife in case of anterior fistula and lithotomy in case of posterior fistula. Location of IFO by injecting a diluted (1/3) solution of hydrogen peroxide through EFO. Opening of the fistula trajectory with a stylus. Excision of the extrasphincteric component of the fistula and cleansing of sphincteric tract. Design of a flap with electric scalpel, of partial thickness including mucosa-submucosa and part of the fibres of the internal sphincter, with a broad base (twice the apex), sliding in a craniocaudal direction, without tension, to completely cover the internal part of the fistula, closure of the internal orifice with cross stitch and suture of flap with simple 3/0 polyglecaprone 25 absorbable suture (MonocrylTM Plus®).
Peri-operative care and follow-up:
All patients were advised to follow a waste-free diet 48 hours before admission, and were given an enema on the night before surgery. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis with IV amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 2 g half an hour before the start of surgery. Six hours after surgery, liquid diet commenced, progressing to semi-bland for dinner that night, and bland on the first day after surgery. No postoperative antibiotic treatment was indicated. The ward surgeon, unrelated to the study, discharged the patient based on these criteria: afebrile, controlled pain, appropriate oral tolerance and surgical wound correct.
All patients received 12 months of follow-up, except for one who left the study after 8 months. After discharge, the patient attended for cleaning of the surgical wound on the following two Fridays, with review of the symptom diary (SD) and evaluation of possible complications by the Coloproctology Unit surgeon. The patient attended a scheduled appointment one month after surgery (1st post-op visit), where he was evaluated and data was collected in the case report form (CRF), the SD was collected and possible complications were evaluated (infection of surgical site, haematoma, wound dehiscence). New appointments were scheduled at 3 (2nd post-op visit) and 6 months (3rd post-op visit), where the patient was evaluated and the respective data were collected. The final visit (4th post-op visit) took place at 12 months, where the post-op Wexner scale was applied.
Sample size and statistical analysis:
When the study began, publications reported a relapse rate of 0-33% with rectal advancement flap, with an average of 19% (19) and we can assume that the response rate to surgical treatment was approximately 85% for RAF, while the expected response rate for LIFT was 70%, the average of the rates observed in clinical studies published to date, which ranged from 57% to 94% (19).
With these data, considering response as the absence of fistula recurrence at 12 months, and in order to obtain a power of 80% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), that the difference between proportions p1 and p2 was lower than the non-inferiority limit, by a normal asymptotic test for proportions, unilateral for two independent samples, considering that the level of significance was 0.5, assuming that the proportion in the reference group was 85%, the proportion in the experimental group was 70%, the proportion of patients in the reference group relative to the total was 50% and the non-inferiority limit was 10% and the expected withdrawal rate was 5%, 36 patients were required for the reference group and 36 for the experimental group, making a total of 72 patients in the study.
The categorical variables were described with mean values and percentages. The continuous variables were described with mean values and standard deviation, or median values and range. The Chi-square or Fisher test was used to compare two qualitative variables, to see whether there was dependence between them. The Bonferroni correction was used for column comparisons. The Student's t-test was used for comparison of the two groups, after checking the normality and homogeneity of variances assumptions with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests, respectively. For the analysis of non-inferiority of the primary and categorical variables, the calculation was through the Farrington-Manning score and Miettinen-Nurminen Score tests, with a level of significance of 0.05 and a non-inferiority limit of 0.10. For the continuous variables, non-inferiority was evaluated by difference of means, with the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Wilcoxon test. All statistical comparisons used a bilateral test with a level of significance of p \< 0.05.
The primary study analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population.
Design:
Phase III, single centre, randomised, open-label, parallel group trial controlled with active comparator, with blind evaluation of results by a non-commercial third party. This study was conducted in 72 patients who had undergone complex anal fistula surgery and met the inclusion criteria.
The study was conducted by the Colo proctology Unit of the General and Digestive Surgery Department of Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofia, Murcia, Spain, from February 2013 to June 2016, and approved by the hospital's Independent Ethics Committee (IEC). The study was conducted pursuant to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (Seoul, October 2008) and the Good Clinical Practice (GP) standards of the European Economic Community's task force on the efficacy of medicinal substances (1990) and all legislation currently applicable in Spain (Royal Decree 223/2004 of 6 February).
Patients with a diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of anal fistula were referred to the Coloproctology Office. At the first visit, demographic data and a clinical history was obtained, followed by a physical examination of the anal region, with rigid anoscopy, ordering an endoanal ultrasound. At a second visit, if the diagnosis of complex anal fistula was confirmed, after providing information about the study, the patient was invited to participate, signed the consent form, and underwent the pre-operative Wexner scale. Patients were allocated a randomisation code for LIFT or RAF on the day of surgery. After surgery, controls were performed on days 7 and 14, by means of a symptoms diary to be completed by each patient, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the surgery, with the Wexner scale calculated in the last control of each patient.
Complex anal fistula was defined as a fistula at risk of affecting continence involving more than 30% of the sphincteric apparatus. Infection of surgical site at or near the incision in the 30 days following surgery (28). Haematoma was defined as accumulation of blood in the surgical area, with bluish or violet colouring of the affected area; surgical wound dehiscence was defined as the spontaneous separation of the edges of the wound, in the absence of surgical site infection.
The inclusion criteria were patient diagnosed with transsphincteric (medium or high) or suprasphincteric cryptoglandular anal fistula, over 18 years of age, with no abscess at the time of surgery, who agreed to participate and signed the informed consent form, and was capable transsphincteric understanding and following study instructions. The exclusion criteria were minor patient, diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of, Crohn's disease, malignant anal tumour, tuberculosis or suppurative hidradenitis, a history of radiotherapy of the ano-perineal region, language difficulties that prevent comprehension of the study, or refusal to participate.
Each patient's data were collected in the case report form and transferred to a database for their statistical analysis by an analyst unrelated to the study, preserving their anonymity and the treatment group to which they belonged.
Study objectives:
The primary objective was to show the non-inferiority in therapeutic efficacy of LIFT versus RAF in the surgical treatment of CAF. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group without fistula recurrence 12 months after surgery.
The secondary objectives were to show the non inferiority of LIFT versus RAF in therapeutic safety:
* Evaluating functionality, both before and after surgery, in both treatment groups, through anal continence, using the Wexner scale.
* Comparing post-operative complications in both treatment groups: infection of surgical site, haematoma and surgical wound dehiscence.
* Comparing time to fistula relapse in both treatment groups, by a survival analysis.
* Analysing hospital management factors (duration of surgery and hospitalisation) in both treatment groups.
Randomisation and surgeries:
The subjects were randomised 1:1 to receive LIFT or RAF surgery. Patient randomisation was by randomisation in balanced six-cell blocks; the sequence was custodied by the Teaching Secretary, unrelated to the study. The surgeon requested each patient's randomisation code on the day of surgery. LIFT or RAF.
The patients were operated by three surgeons from the Coloproctology Unit, whose learning curve was based on unifying experimental technique (LIFT) criteria in six patients before the start of the study. All the surgeries used epidural anaesthesia.
* Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT): jackknife position. Location of IFO by injecting a diluted (1/3) solution of hydrogen peroxide through the external fistula orifice (EFO). Opening of the fistula trajectory with a stylus. Curved 2.5 cm incision in the intersphincteric space until trajectory is skeletalised, ligation of internal and external sphincter with 3/0 single thread polyglecaprone 25 absorbable suture (MonocrylTM Plus®), exeresis of the trajectory between the ligations with cold scalpel. Cleansing of distal part with curette and enlargement of the external fistula orifice (EFO). Closure of the muscular intersphincteric plane with loose stitches of 3/0 polyglecaprone 25 single-thread absorbable suture (MonocrylTM Plus®). Closure of intersphincteric skin with simple plaited polyglycolic acid absorbable sutures (SSA90®).
* Rectal advancement flap (CAR): jackknife in case of anterior fistula and lithotomy in case of posterior fistula. Location of IFO by injecting a diluted (1/3) solution of hydrogen peroxide through EFO. Opening of the fistula trajectory with a stylus. Excision of the extrasphincteric component of the fistula and cleansing of sphincteric tract. Design of a flap with electric scalpel, of partial thickness including mucosa-submucosa and part of the fibres of the internal sphincter, with a broad base (twice the apex), sliding in a craniocaudal direction, without tension, to completely cover the internal part of the fistula, closure of the internal orifice with cross stitch and suture of flap with simple 3/0 polyglecaprone 25 absorbable suture (MonocrylTM Plus®).
Peri-operative care and follow-up:
All patients were advised to follow a waste-free diet 48 hours before admission, and were given an enema on the night before surgery. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis with IV amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 2 g half an hour before the start of surgery. Six hours after surgery, liquid diet commenced, progressing to semi-bland for dinner that night, and bland on the first day after surgery. No postoperative antibiotic treatment was indicated. The ward surgeon, unrelated to the study, discharged the patient based on these criteria: afebrile, controlled pain, appropriate oral tolerance and surgical wound correct.
All patients received 12 months of follow-up, except for one who left the study after 8 months. After discharge, the patient attended for cleaning of the surgical wound on the following two Fridays, with review of the symptom diary (SD) and evaluation of possible complications by the Coloproctology Unit surgeon. The patient attended a scheduled appointment one month after surgery (1st post-op visit), where he was evaluated and data was collected in the case report form (CRF), the SD was collected and possible complications were evaluated (infection of surgical site, haematoma, wound dehiscence). New appointments were scheduled at 3 (2nd post-op visit) and 6 months (3rd post-op visit), where the patient was evaluated and the respective data were collected. The final visit (4th post-op visit) took place at 12 months, where the post-op Wexner scale was applied.
Sample size and statistical analysis:
When the study began, publications reported a relapse rate of 0-33% with rectal advancement flap, with an average of 19% (19) and we can assume that the response rate to surgical treatment was approximately 85% for RAF, while the expected response rate for LIFT was 70%, the average of the rates observed in clinical studies published to date, which ranged from 57% to 94% (19).
With these data, considering response as the absence of fistula recurrence at 12 months, and in order to obtain a power of 80% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), that the difference between proportions p1 and p2 was lower than the non-inferiority limit, by a normal asymptotic test for proportions, unilateral for two independent samples, considering that the level of significance was 0.5, assuming that the proportion in the reference group was 85%, the proportion in the experimental group was 70%, the proportion of patients in the reference group relative to the total was 50% and the non-inferiority limit was 10% and the expected withdrawal rate was 5%, 36 patients were required for the reference group and 36 for the experimental group, making a total of 72 patients in the study.
The categorical variables were described with mean values and percentages. The continuous variables were described with mean values and standard deviation, or median values and range. The Chi-square or Fisher test was used to compare two qualitative variables, to see whether there was dependence between them. The Bonferroni correction was used for column comparisons. The Student's t-test was used for comparison of the two groups, after checking the normality and homogeneity of variances assumptions with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests, respectively. For the analysis of non-inferiority of the primary and categorical variables, the calculation was through the Farrington-Manning score and Miettinen-Nurminen Score tests, with a level of significance of 0.05 and a non-inferiority limit of 0.10. For the continuous variables, non-inferiority was evaluated by difference of means, with the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Wilcoxon test. All statistical comparisons used a bilateral test with a level of significance of p \< 0.05.
The primary study analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Anal Fistula
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
A controlled, randomised clinical trial
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Outcome Assessors
Open
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
LIFT
ligation of interesphincteric fistula tract
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
LIFT
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Ligation of fistula tract between external and internal sphincter
FLAP
Rectal advancement flap
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
FLAP
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Creation of a partial wall rectal flap to close internal opening of fistula tract
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
LIFT
Ligation of fistula tract between external and internal sphincter
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
FLAP
Creation of a partial wall rectal flap to close internal opening of fistula tract
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
ligation of interesphincteric fistula tract
Rectal advancement flap
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* patient diagnosed with transsphincteric (medium or high) or suprasphincteric cryptoglandular anal fistula
* with no abscess at the time of surgery
* who agreed to participate and signed the informed consent form
* capable transsphincteric understanding and following study instructions
* with no abscess at the time of surgery
* who agreed to participate and signed the informed consent form
* capable transsphincteric understanding and following study instructions
Exclusion Criteria
* diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of, Crohn's disease
* diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of, malignant anal tumour
* diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of,tuberculosis or suppurative hidradenitis
* a history of radiotherapy of the ano-perineal region
* language difficulties that prevent comprehension of the study
* refusal to participate
* diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of, malignant anal tumour
* diagnosed with, or with a suspected diagnosis of,tuberculosis or suppurative hidradenitis
* a history of radiotherapy of the ano-perineal region
* language difficulties that prevent comprehension of the study
* refusal to participate
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía de Murcia
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Jorge Alejandro Benavides Buleje
Principal Investigator
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Jorge Alejandro Benavides Buleje, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Sahnan K, Askari A, Adegbola SO, Tozer PJ, Phillips RKS, Hart A, Faiz OD. Natural history of anorectal sepsis. Br J Surg. 2017 Dec;104(13):1857-1865. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10614. Epub 2017 Aug 31.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD. A classification of fistula-in-ano. Br J Surg. 1976 Jan;63(1):1-12. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800630102.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sneider EB, Maykel JA. Diagnosis and management of symptomatic hemorrhoids. Surg Clin North Am. 2010 Feb;90(1):17-32, Table of Contents. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2009.10.005.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bleier JI, Moloo H. Current management of cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano. World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jul 28;17(28):3286-91. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i28.3286.
Reference Type
RESULT
Cadeddu F, Salis F, Lisi G, Ciangola I, Milito G. Complex anal fistula remains a challenge for colorectal surgeon. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 May;30(5):595-603. doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-2104-7. Epub 2015 Jan 9.
Reference Type
RESULT
Narang SK, Keogh K, Alam NN, Pathak S, Daniels IR, Smart NJ. A systematic review of new treatments for cryptoglandular fistula in ano. Surgeon. 2017 Feb;15(1):30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2016.02.002. Epub 2016 Mar 15.
Reference Type
RESULT
Bubbers EJ, Cologne KG. Management of Complex Anal Fistulas. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2016 Mar;29(1):43-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1570392.
Reference Type
RESULT
Phillips J, Lees N, Arnall F. Current management of fistula-in-ano. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2015 Mar;76(3):142, 144-7. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2015.76.3.142.
Reference Type
RESULT
Jacob TJ, Perakath B, Keighley MR. Surgical intervention for anorectal fistula. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;(5):CD006319. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006319.pub2.
Reference Type
RESULT
Sandborn WJ, Fazio VW, Feagan BG, Hanauer SB; American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Committee. AGA technical review on perianal Crohn's disease. Gastroenterology. 2003 Nov;125(5):1508-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gastro.2003.08.025. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
de Groof EJ, Cabral VN, Buskens CJ, Morton DG, Hahnloser D, Bemelman WA; research committee of the European Society of Coloproctology. Systematic review of evidence and consensus on perianal fistula: an analysis of national and international guidelines. Colorectal Dis. 2016 Apr;18(4):O119-34. doi: 10.1111/codi.13286.
Reference Type
RESULT
Jarrar A, Church J. Advancement flap repair: a good option for complex anorectal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Dec;54(12):1537-41. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31822d7ddd.
Reference Type
RESULT
Gottgens KW, Smeets RR, Stassen LP, Beets G, Breukink SO. Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical interventions for high cryptoglandular perianal fistula. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 May;30(5):583-93. doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-2091-8. Epub 2014 Dec 10.
Reference Type
RESULT
Rojanasakul A, Pattanaarun J, Sahakitrungruang C, Tantiphlachiva K. Total anal sphincter saving technique for fistula-in-ano; the ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007 Mar;90(3):581-6.
Reference Type
RESULT
Matos D, Lunniss PJ, Phillips RK. Total sphincter conservation in high fistula in ano: results of a new approach. Br J Surg. 1993 Jun;80(6):802-4. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800800651.
Reference Type
RESULT
Bleier JI, Moloo H, Goldberg SM. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract: an effective new technique for complex fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Jan;53(1):43-6. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181bb869f.
Reference Type
RESULT
Balciscueta Z, Uribe N, Balciscueta I, Andreu-Ballester JC, Garcia-Granero E. Rectal advancement flap for the treatment of complex cryptoglandular anal fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017 May;32(5):599-609. doi: 10.1007/s00384-017-2779-7. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
Reference Type
RESULT
Garg P. Randomized clinical trial of anal fistula plug versus endorectal advancement flap for the treatment of high cryptoglandular fistula in ano (Br J Surg 2009; 96: 608-612). Br J Surg. 2009 Aug;96(8):958-9; author reply 959. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6772. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Bondi J, Avdagic J, Karlbom U, Hallbook O, Kalman D, Saltyte Benth J, Naimy N, Oresland T. Randomized clinical trial comparing collagen plug and advancement flap for trans-sphincteric anal fistula. Br J Surg. 2017 Aug;104(9):1160-1166. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10549. Epub 2017 May 10.
Reference Type
RESULT
Malakorn S, Sammour T, Khomvilai S, Chowchankit I, Gunarasa S, Kanjanasilp P, Thiptanakij C, Rojanasakul A. Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula Tract for Fistula in Ano: Lessons Learned From a Decade of Experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 Oct;60(10):1065-1070. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000880.
Reference Type
RESULT
Xu Y, Tang W. Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula Tract Is Suitable for Recurrent Anal Fistulas from Follow-Up of 16 Months. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:3152424. doi: 10.1155/2017/3152424. Epub 2017 Feb 8.
Reference Type
RESULT
Mushaya C, Bartlett L, Schulze B, Ho YH. Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract compared with advancement flap for complex anorectal fistulas requiring initial seton drainage. Am J Surg. 2012 Sep;204(3):283-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.10.025. Epub 2012 May 19.
Reference Type
RESULT
Madbouly KM, El Shazly W, Abbas KS, Hussein AM. Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract versus mucosal advancement flap in patients with high transsphincteric fistula-in-ano: a prospective randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014 Oct;57(10):1202-8. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000194.
Reference Type
RESULT
Roig JV, Jordan J, Garcia-Armengol J, Esclapez P, Solana A. Changes in anorectal morphologic and functional parameters after fistula-in-ano surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 Aug;52(8):1462-9. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a80e24.
Reference Type
RESULT
Ye F, Tang C, Wang D, Zheng S. Early experience with the modificated approach of ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract for high transsphincteric fistula. World J Surg. 2015 Apr;39(4):1059-65. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2888-1.
Reference Type
RESULT
Sirikurnpiboon S, Awapittaya B, Jivapaisarnpong P. Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract and its modification: Results from treatment of complex fistula. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Apr 27;5(4):123-8. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v5.i4.123.
Reference Type
RESULT
Yassin NA, Hammond TM, Lunniss PJ, Phillips RK. Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract in the management of anal fistula. A systematic review. Colorectal Dis. 2013 May;15(5):527-35. doi: 10.1111/codi.12224.
Reference Type
RESULT
Vergara-Fernandez O, Espino-Urbina LA. Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract: what is the evidence in a review? World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct 28;19(40):6805-13. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i40.6805.
Reference Type
RESULT
Williams G, Williams A, Tozer P, Phillips R, Ahmad A, Jayne D, Maxwell-Armstrong C. The treatment of anal fistula: second ACPGBI Position Statement - 2018. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Jul;20 Suppl 3:5-31. doi: 10.1111/codi.14054.
Reference Type
RESULT
Gecse KB, Bemelman W, Kamm MA, Stoker J, Khanna R, Ng SC, Panes J, van Assche G, Liu Z, Hart A, Levesque BG, D'Haens G; World Gastroenterology Organization, International Organisation for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases IOIBD, European Society of Coloproctology and Robarts Clinical Trials; World Gastroenterology Organization International Organisation for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases IOIBD European Society of Coloproctology and Robarts Clinical Trials. A global consensus on the classification, diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment of perianal fistulising Crohn's disease. Gut. 2014 Sep;63(9):1381-92. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306709. Epub 2014 Jun 20.
Reference Type
RESULT
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
JBB1
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
LIFTRAF-RCT
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Ligation of Inter-sphincteric Fistula Tract for Management of Anal Fistula
NCT05314205
COMPLETED
Efficacy Of Minimally Invasive Approach In The Surgical Treatment Of Complex Perianal Fistula
NCT06484660
RECRUITING
NA
Treatment of Perirectal Fistula With Cutting Seton vs. Collagen Plug
NCT00450671
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Fistulectomy and Primary Sphincter rEconstruction vs. endorectaL Advancement Flap in the Treatment of High Anal Fistulas
NCT04119700
UNKNOWN
NA
Anal Fistula Treatment Outcome - Collagen Plug Versus Advancement Flap Surgery
NCT01021774
COMPLETED
NA
Anal Fistula Plug Versus Endorectal Advancement Flap
NCT01931371
UNKNOWN
NA
The Modified Clipped-LIFT Procedure for High Transsphincteric or Suprasphincteric Fistula
NCT07102134
COMPLETED
NA
Surgical Treatment of High Perianal Fistulas
NCT01997645
UNKNOWN
NA
Comparing Three Surgical Techniques for the Treatment of Transsphincteric Perianal Fistula: (1) Traditional Fistulotomy (Lay Open), (2) Ligation of the Intersphincteric Tract (LIFT) With Adjunctive Endo Fistula Laser Ablation, and (3) Open LIFT Procedure Followed by LASER
NCT07236047
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Ligation of Intersphincteric Track (LIFT) Versus Fistulectomy in Trans-sphincteric Anal Ffistula.
NCT04351074
COMPLETED
NA
Photodynamic Therapy in Anal Fistula
NCT03864718
COMPLETED
LIFT-plug vs LIFT, a RCT Trial
NCT04310800
UNKNOWN
NA
Coring Out Fistulectomy With Closure of Internal Sphincter Opening Versus Lay Open Fistulotomy and Primary Sphincter Repair in Transsphincteric Perianal Fistula
NCT06478615
COMPLETED
NA
Laser Assisted Treatment of Fistula In Ano
NCT05390151
RECRUITING
NA
Anal Fistula Plug, a Retrospective Study
NCT04319861
COMPLETED
NA
Conventional Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy, V-Y Anoplasty and Tailored Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy With V-YF in Treatment of Chronic Anal Fissure(CAF)
NCT01500889
COMPLETED
NA
Collagen Paste vs Mucosal Advancement Flap for FIA
NCT06386835
RECRUITING
NA
A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Surgisis AFP to Advancement Flap for the Repair of Anal Fistulas
NCT00545441
COMPLETED
NA
Treatment of Fistula in Ano With Autologous Fatty Tissue Cells Transplantation
NCT04660903
SUSPENDED
NA
Identifying Landmark Factors of Anal Fistulas
NCT06421129
COMPLETED
Re-routing in Treatment High Anal Fistula
NCT05476146
UNKNOWN
NA
Endoscopic Treatment of Complex Anal Fistulas
NCT02585167
TERMINATED
NA
Decompression and Drainage Seton in the Treatment of High Complex Anal Fistula
NCT05087407
COMPLETED
NA
Anal Sphincter Reconstruction After High Recurrent Anorectal Fistula Excision
NCT04357210
COMPLETED
Ligation of the Intersphincteric Fistula Tract (LIFT) + Biodesign for Anal Fistula
NCT01602081
COMPLETED