Skip to content

Anal Fistula Treatment Outcome - Collagen Plug Versus Advancement Flap Surgery

Comparison of Anal Fistula Treatment Outcome - Collagen Plug vs Advancement Flap Surgery. A Randomised Prospective Blinded Multi-centre Study

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01021774
Enrollment
94
Registered
2009-11-30
Start date
2009-11-30
Completion date
2016-06-30
Last updated
2016-11-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Perianal Fistula

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the outcome of anal fistula repair with a collagen plug is comparable to that of repair by a mucosal advancement flap.

Detailed description

Perianal fistula can occur as a complication to a perianal abscess. A perianal fistula is associated with significant morbidity and reduced quality of life. Anal fistulas seldom heal spontaneously and may require surgical intervention. The main purpose of the operation will be to close the fistula and preserve anal continence. The traditional surgical fistula closing techniques often show disappointing results. Today, a collagen plug for fistula treatment is commercially available. The mounting of this plug is technically easy and less invasive than the traditional closure of the fistula by making a lid of anal mucosa (advancement flap). The purpose of this study is to determine whether the outcome of anal fistula repair with a collagen plug is comparable to that of repair by a mucosal advancement flap, with regard to healing of fistula, anal continence and pain. Plug treatment has so far shown promising results, but prospective, randomised controlled trials are needed.

Interventions

PROCEDUREAnal fistula treatment

A comparison of collagen plug vs advancement flap surgery

Sponsors

Uppsala University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
University Hospital, Linkoeping
CollaboratorOTHER
Region Örebro County
CollaboratorOTHER
University Hospital, Akershus
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with fistula involving \> 1/3 of the external anal sphincter * Single, continuous fistula tract at time of inclusion (implies pre-treatment with seton) * Patients with previous fistula surgery can be included (max. 1 lambeau or 1 plug) * All patients included must be able to fill in an informed, written consent and to understand its implications and contents and to participate in the follow-up

Exclusion criteria

* Fistula tract shorter than 2 cm * Complex fistula tract system (branching of the fistula tract) * Age \< 18 years * Pregnancy * HIV-positivity * Fistula caused by malignancy * Tuberculosis * Hidrosadenitis suppurativa * Pilonidal sinus disease * No internal fistula opening found * Unable/contra indications to go through MRI scanning * Crohn´s disease * Ulcerative proctitis

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Anorectal fistula closing rate1 year

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Quality of life1 year

Countries

Norway

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 26, 2026