Skip to main content
. 2024 Oct 28;16(10):552–560. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v16.i10.552

Table 2.

Merits and demerits of fistulectomy vs transanal opening of the intersphincteric space vs modified transanal opening of the intersphincteric space


Fistulectomy
TROPIS
Modified TROPIS
Surgical procedure Remove the fistula, and surrounding muscles, fat and connective tissues Identify the internal opening. Lay open the fistula tract in the intersphincteric plane through the transanal route. Resect the lower part of the internal sphincter. Scrap out the remaining branching fistulas Widen the intersphincteric plane through the transanal route Identify the internal opening. A thorough drainage of fistulas passing through the intersphincteric plane. Tunnel-like fistulectomy of fistulas lateral to the external sphincter
Merits Definite efficacy High cure rate; small wound area; fast recovery Easy to identify the internal opening and favor to the drainage and surgical procedure. Low risks of postoperative anal dysfunction and recurrence. Small wound area. Less pain. Fast recovery
Demerits Large wound area; intensive pain; long recovery Unable to clearly expose the surgical field. Not suitable for anal fistulas without a clearly identified internal opening. Not suitable for Asian people. High risks of bleeding and postoperative recurrence Less popular. Lack of long-term follow-up data. Lack of a comparative group

TROPIS: Transanal opening of intersphincteric space.