Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fistulectomy versus fistulotomy for low anal fistula

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of fistulectomy compared to fistulotomy, and which procedure was the best procedure for patients with low anal fistula. METHODS: The literature search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Google original studies and a manual search of reference on the topic of fistulectomy compared to fistulotomy for anal fistula that had a deadline for publication by June 2016. Randomized controlled trials studies were included in the review. The outcome variables were analyzed which including operative time, healing time, postoperative complications, recurrence and incontinence. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (fistulectomy = 280, fistulotomy = 285) were considered suitable for the meta-analysis, with a total of 565 patients. The result of meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in operative time [OR 4.74, 95 % CI −2.74, 12.23, p = 0.21] and healing time [OR −3.32, 95 % CI −19.86, 13.23, p = 0.69] between the fistulectomy and fistulotomy procedures. Three main postoperative complications were included, and the combined result indicated no statistically significant difference in overall complications [OR 1.39, 95 % CI 0.51, 3.78, p = 0.52] and subgroup complication. At the end of follow up, two kinds of surgical methods have the same low recurrence rate and faecal incontinence. The result revealed that there was no significant difference in rate of fistula recurrence between the fistulectomy and the fistulotomy [OR 1.39, 95 % CI 0.70, 2.73, p = 0.34]. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis indicates that there is no conclusive evidence if fistulectomy or fistulotomy procedure is better in the treatment of low anal fistula.