Techniques in coloproctology · 2024
Closing the internal opening with a rectal advancement flap increases the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell injection for complex Crohn's disease anal fistulas.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fathallah N, Haouari M A, Alam A, Barré A, Roland D, Spindler L, Far E Safa, de Parades V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of injections of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) for anal fistula treatment may be impaired by the persistence of stools passing into the fistula, causing bacterial contamination and a local inflammatory reaction. We aimed to compare remission rates between patients treated by MSC injection with simple sutures and those treated with a rectal advancement flap.
METHODS: This single-center prospective study compared the first patients who underwent internal opening closure with sutures with the subsequent patients treated with a flap. Complete clinical remission was defined as complete closure of the external opening(s) without pain or discharge, and complete radiological remission was defined as a Magnifi-CD score of 0.
RESULTS: We compared the first 42 patients who had sutures with the 20 subsequent patients who had an advancement flap. The median follow-up was 15.5 [8.8-24.9] months. The cumulative incidence of complete clinical response at M12 was 53.8% [38.1-69.6%] in the suture group versus 93.3% [77.4-100.0] in the flap group (p < 0.001). The Magnifi-CD score was 0 for 41.7% [25.5-59.2%]) of patients treated with sutures versus 72.7% [39.0-63.9%]) of patients treated with a flap (p = 0.093). Anal incontinence score did not differ between the two groups. Practicing an advancement flap was the only significant factor associated with complete clinical remission over time (adjusted HR [95% CI] of 2.6 [1.4-4.9], p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Complete clinical remission rates following MSC injection are significantly higher after closure of the internal opening with a rectal flap than after closure with sutures, without consequences on anal continence.
METHODS: This single-center prospective study compared the first patients who underwent internal opening closure with sutures with the subsequent patients treated with a flap. Complete clinical remission was defined as complete closure of the external opening(s) without pain or discharge, and complete radiological remission was defined as a Magnifi-CD score of 0.
RESULTS: We compared the first 42 patients who had sutures with the 20 subsequent patients who had an advancement flap. The median follow-up was 15.5 [8.8-24.9] months. The cumulative incidence of complete clinical response at M12 was 53.8% [38.1-69.6%] in the suture group versus 93.3% [77.4-100.0] in the flap group (p < 0.001). The Magnifi-CD score was 0 for 41.7% [25.5-59.2%]) of patients treated with sutures versus 72.7% [39.0-63.9%]) of patients treated with a flap (p = 0.093). Anal incontinence score did not differ between the two groups. Practicing an advancement flap was the only significant factor associated with complete clinical remission over time (adjusted HR [95% CI] of 2.6 [1.4-4.9], p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Complete clinical remission rates following MSC injection are significantly higher after closure of the internal opening with a rectal flap than after closure with sutures, without consequences on anal continence.