OBJECTIVETo investigate the clinical efficacy of ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) in the treatment of simple anal fistula, including transphincteric anal fistula and insphincteric anal fistula.

METHODSClinical data of 52 patients with anal fistula receiving surgery treatment in Beijing Anorectal Hospital from January to October 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Adoption of surgical procedure was based on rectal endoluminal ultrasound and patients' decision. Patients were divided into LIFT group and seton group. The two groups were compared in terms of operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, incidence of urinary retention, wound healing time, cure rate, recurrence, and the anal incontinence score.

RESULTSThere were 52 patients in the entire cohort including 28 cases of transphincteric anal fistula (14 cases of LIFT and seton placement groups) and 24 cases of intersphincteric anal fistula (12 case of LIFT and seton placement). The operation time was shorter in seton placement group in patients with two simple anal fistula [(23.9±5.0) min vs. (46.3±7.7) min, P<0.05]. LIFT postoperative pain score [(1.6±0.6) vs. (6.1±1.3)], wound healing time [(7.9±2.0) days vs. (30.0±5.1) days], postoperative hospital stay [(10.3±3.1) days vs. (20.7±7.1) days], and anal incontinence scores [(1.1±0.4) vs. (4.9±1.1)] were better than that of anal fistula seton (all P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in intraoperatie blood loss [(23.1±4.7) ml vs. (23.3±4.7) ml, P>0.05]. The cure rate of intersphincteric anal fistula was 83.3%(10/12) in LIFT group, and 100%(12/12) in the seton group. The cure rate of transphincteric anal fistula was 78.6% (11/14) in LIFT and 92.9%(13/14) in anal fistula seton group. There was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONIn the treatment of transphincteric fistula tract and intersphincteric fistula tract, LIFT procedures should be considered.