Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of sphincter-sparing and non-sphincter-sparing procedures for complex anal fistulas: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of postoperative incontinence, pain, and quality of life

In brief

Ligation-adhesive approaches lower incontinence, pain and improve quality of life compared with seton

In a network meta-analysis of 2,972 patients, techniques that combine ligation of the intersphincteric tract with adhesives (or stem-cell glue) consistently reduced postoperative fecal incontinence and pain and yielded higher quality-of-life scores than traditional seton drainage, while recurrence rates remained similar. The findings suggest that careful selection of these sphincter-preserving methods can enhance functional outcomes, but long-term comparative data are still limited.

Journal
Surgery (Q1)
Published
20 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Mohamad Sadek Zoghbi, Lama Hamade, Dima Itani, Yomna El Zibaoui, Moustafa Moussally, Emre Gorgun
PMID
42674909
DOI
10.1016/j.surg.2026.110469

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Surgery (top studies of the week, 6 September 2026): Network meta‑analysis of anal fistula techniques

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In complex anal fistulas, treatment should achieve healing while preserving continence and quality of life. However, direct comparative evidence across sphincter-preserving, sphincter-dividing/reconstructive, and seton-based approaches remains limited. We compared these techniques for postoperative fecal incontinence, pain, quality of life, and recurrence. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Network Meta-Analysis checklist to report our study. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL until August 2025. We included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials in adults with complex cryptoglandular anal fistulas. We extracted data via Research Electronic Data Capture and performed risk-of-bias evaluation via Risk of Bias 2/ROBINS-I. We performed data analysis using MetaXL with setonas the reference technique. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate the certainty of our evidence. RESULTS: We included 2,972 patients across 43 studies. For fecal incontinence, adipose-derived stem cells plus fibrin glue and video-assisted anal fistula treatment combined with ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract showed the most consistent reductions compared with seton (moderate-high certainty). For pain, the JUMP seton technique (described by Khoshnevis et al) and video-assisted anal fistula treatment combined with ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract were associated with lower pain scores (moderate certainty). Soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor, video-assisted anal fistula treatment combined with ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract, and ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract plus platelet-rich plasma showed higher quality-of-life scores compared with seton (moderate certainty). Recurrence was lower with adipose-derived stem cells plus fibrin glue (relative risk, 0.02) and acellular dermal matrix (relative risk, 0.08) compared with seton. Randomized controlled trial-only sensitivity analyses were consistent with low inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS: Ligation and adhesive-based approaches showed an advantage over seton-based techniques in terms of fecal incontinence, pain, and quality-of-life results with comparable recurrence rates. These results highlight the importance of careful patient selection and choosing specific surgical approaches to improve patients' outcomes.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.