LIFT procedure for posterior fistula-in-ano. Are outcomes good enough? A systematic review and meta-analysisis of observational studies

Comparison of clinical outcomes of anal fistula plug and endoanal advancement flap repair treating the complex anal fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Two researchers independently included the literature that met the criteria according to the PICO principles [ 13 , 14 ]. Targeted literature for inclusion: (1) P: Inclusion criteria: patients with a definitive diagnosis of complex anal fistula: fistula tract crossing more than 30% of the external sphincter, anterior fistula in a woman, multiple tracts, recurrent fistula, or pre-existing incontinence; Exclusion criteria: patients with other causes of anal fistula such as inflammatory bowel disease, tuberculosis, trauma, and foreign body infection; patients with other underlying diseases at the time of treatment, such as severe cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hematologic disease, and psychiatric disease were excluded; (2) I: Anal fistula plug (AFP); (3) C: Endoanal Advancement Flap (EAFR); (4) O: with definite anal fistula cure results.…”

“…Quality assessment of the study was done scrupulously by researchers. The quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews in the Review Manage [ 25 ], while the Non-RCTs’ quality was assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [ 13 , 26 ].…”

A commentary on “High ligation of the anal fistula tract by lateral approach: A prospective cohort study on a modification of the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract technique”

“…The ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) technique mainly ligates and cuts the fistula between the sphincters, scrapes the infected tissue of the fistula wall, and tightens the fistula tract with ligation, which is an effective and low-cost sphincter-sparing technique with a success rate of 94.4% and the absence of continence failures 1 , 2 . Kang et al .…”