The Study Of Efficacy Of Treating Simple Low Anal Fistula (Damp Invasion Of Lower Energizer) With Fistulectomy Plus Anal Skin Grafting

PurposeAnal fistula,which is common,mainly treated by surgery,but healed very slow post operation.Observing and comparing the efficacy and safety of the simple low anal fistula by healing with fistulectomy plus anal skin grafting or fistulectomy only,and to provide experence for applying of fistulectomy plus anal skin grafting,then make this technique an alternative to manage the simple low anal fistula.MethodsSelected 27 simple low anal fistula patients and distributed the patients into the treatment group(TG)which underwent fistulectomy plus anal skin grafting and the control group(CG)which underwent fistulectomy only randomly.Observing and recording the outcome measures included operation time(OT)、hospital-stay、curing time(CT)、cure rate(CR)、recurernce rate(RR)and safety measures included postoperative pain(PP)、bleeding and urinary retention of the two groups separately.Comparing the outcomes and safeties between them.Results1.Comparing OT:the OT of treatment group is(62±18)min,while the control group is(38±11)min,the difference was statistically significant(t=4.34,P<0.05).2.Comparing hospital-stay:the hospital-stay of treatment group is(6.8±1.2)d,while the control group is(5.6 ± 2.6)d,the difference was not statistically significant(p>0.05).3.Comparing CT:the CT of treatment group is(14.4±3.2)d,while the control group is(38.7± 13.6)d,the difference was statistically significant(unilateral and bilateral P<0.05).4.Comparing postoperative pain and intramuscular injection of analgesics:1 Ⅰ° pain patient and 11 Ⅳ° pain patients in the treatment group,while 4 Ⅰ° pain patients and 11 Ⅳ° pain patients in the control group,the difference was not statistically significant(x2＝1.485,p>0.05),so is the intramuscular injection of analgesics(t=1.667,p>0.05).5.Bleeding:3 Ⅰ° bleeding patients and 9 Ⅱ° bleeding patients in the treatment group,while 4Ⅰ° pain patients and 11 Ⅳ° pain patients in the control group,the difference was not statistically significant(x2=0.010,p>0.05).6.Comparing urinary retention rate:5 patients(42%)underwent urinary retention and needed catheterization in the treatment group,while 6 patients(40%)underwent urinary retention,the difference was not statistically significant(p>0.05).7.Continence:The capacity of controling solid、liqued、gas of anus between the treatment group and control group was similar,the difference was not statistically significant(t=-0.891,p>0.05).8.Comparing curing rate:the wound of all the patients of the treatment group are epithelization,the curing rate is 100%,while 96.3%of the control group,the difference was not statistically significant(x2=0.831,p>0.05).9.Comparing recurernce rate:no patient in the treatment group recurred during the follow-up period,while 1 patient relapsed 6 months postoperative,the difference was not statistically significant(x2=0.831,p>0.05).Conclusions1.For the treatment group,a suture at the anal region and made to join together the skin and wound prolonged the operation time for about 30min than the control group,but the prolonged time is acceptable.2.The differences were not statistically significant among hospital-stay、cure rate、recurernce rate,and indicated that the effacy of fistulectomy plus anal skin grafting is as good as,even better than fistulectomy.3.This approach had many excited advantages which shortened the curing time significantly and didn ’ t increased the patients’ risks,for example:postoperative pain、bleeding and urinary retention.