Stapled transperineal rectovaginal fistula repair for low- and mid-level rectovaginal fistulas: A comparison study with rectal mucosal advancement flap repair

Abstract

Background: As an innovative treatment, stapled transperineal rectovaginal fistula repair (STR) for rectovaginal fistula (RVF) has demonstrated effectiveness in preliminary reports. This study aims to compare STR with rectal mucosal advancement flap repair (RAF), a widely utilized surgical procedure, for the surgical outcome of the low- and mid-level RVF. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with low- and mid-level RVF who underwent STR or RAF were included from both the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University and Xi'an Daxing Hospital. Among the 99 total patients, 77 underwent STR and 22 underwent RAF. Patient demographics, operative data, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Recurrence rate and associated risk factors were evaluated. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among patients in terms of clinical characteristics like age, BMI, aetiology, and fistula features. During the follow-up period of 20 months (interquartile range 3.0–41.8 months), a total of 28 patients relapsed, with a significantly lower recurrence rate in the STR group (20.8 %) than in the RAF group (54.6 %) (P = 0.005). In the multivariate Cox analysis, STR was an independent protective factor against recurrence (HR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17–0.79, P = 0.01). Logistic regression indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between these two procedures in terms of surgical complications (OR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.19–1.48, P = 0.23). Conclusion: For low- and mid-level RVF, STR may be an alternative option for treatment modality that offers a lower recurrence rate, without observed disadvantage in terms of surgical complication rates.

Keywords

• Rectovaginal fistula
• Surgical repair
• Advancement flap
• Stapled transperineal repair
• Recurrence