Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Prospective randomized trial of drainage alone vs. drainage and fistulotomy for acute perianal abscesses with proven internal opening

Tang, Choong-Leong M.B.B.S., F.R.C.S.; Chew, Soo-Ping M.B.B.S., F.R.C.S.; Seow-Choen, F. M.B.B.S., F.R.C.S.
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum: December 1996
doi: 10.1007/BF02054531
Original Contributions: PDF Only

PURPOSE: PURPOSE:Incision and drainage (I & D) with concurrent or delayed fistulotomy is the usual treatment for abscess-fistula with a demonstrated internal opening. We compared incision and drainage alonevs.with concurrent fistulotomy for perianal abscesses with a demonstrated internal opening.

METHODS: METHODS:Consecutive patients with acute perianal abscesses and a demonstrated internal opening were prospectively randomized into either the I & D group or drainage with concurrent fistulotomy group. They were followed up at one month, three months, and one year.

RESULTS: RESULTS:The I & D group had 21 patients, and the fistulotomy group had 24 patients. Thirteen patients had low intersphincteric abscess-fistula, and seven had low transsphincteric fistulas in the I & D group. The fistulotomy group had 9 intersphincteric abscess-fistula compared with 14 low transsphincteric ones. Median duration of surgery, hospital stay, and continence at final follow-up were the same in the two groups. Three had recurrent abscess-fistula in the I & D group compared with none in the fistulotomy group (P=0.09).

CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION:I & D alone for acute anal abscess-fistula with demonstrated internal opening showed a tendency to recurrence that did not reach a statistically significant difference compared with concurrent fistulotomy. I & D, therefore, puts only a few patients at risk for recurrence.

© The ASCRS 1996