Anorectal abscess and fistula-in-ano

Definition — one disease, two presentations

Anorectal fistula is an abnormal tract lined by epithelial tissue connecting the anorectum to the skin around the anal verge — fistula-in-ano, anoperineal and perianal fistula are the same entity — and cryptoglandular infection is its commonest cause: suppuration of the anal crypts at the dentate line produces the abscess first, and the fistula follows either spontaneous or surgical drainage of that abscess.^[1] The abscess is therefore the acute presentation and the fistula the chronic presentation of one cryptoglandular process, which is why every drained abscess needs fistula follow-up.^[1][3]

Persistence has a histology: tracts are variably epithelialized, walled by dense collagen with pockets of inflammatory cells; the seeding abscess contains gut flora yet bacteria are infrequently found in chronic tracts; and both cryptoglandular and Crohn fistulas overexpress proinflammatory cytokines with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition — molecular machinery that helps explain why tracts persist after sepsis resolves.^[2] The Italian position statement agrees on the origin — in most cases a non-specific cryptoglandular infection starting from the intersphincteric space — while conceding that recurrence and continence impairment remain unresolved.^[62]

Anatomy and the Parks classification — still the working language

The Parks classification of 1976 — intersphincteric, transsphincteric, suprasphincteric, extrasphincteric — remains the oldest and most frequently used system because it maps directly onto what the operation divides.^[1] Cryptoglandular fistulas most commonly follow intersphincteric or transsphincteric pathways and may complicate with abscess formation.^[7]

Two frequency frames to carry: Vasilevsky's operative series of 160 (intersphincteric 41.9%, transsphincteric 52.1%, suprasphincteric 1.3%, extrasphincteric 0, horseshoe extension 8.8%) and a 52-patient MRI series (transsphincteric 69%, intersphincteric 25%, extrasphincteric 4%) — with 2–4% of tracts conforming to neither system exactly.^[5][6] Classification proved a useful operative guide, with 6.3% recurrence developing between 5 and 25 months.^[5]

Simple versus complex — the triage label that predicts everything

The AGA binary is the viva shorthand: intersphincteric or low transsphincteric, single-tract, non-recurrent cryptoglandular fistulas are simple; high transsphincteric, supra- or extrasphincteric tracts, abscess-associated, noncryptoglandular (Crohn, malignancy, radiation, tuberculosis), sphincter-deficient, anterior-in-female or recurrent disease is complex — and complex disease requires imaging to delineate anatomy and address aetiology before management, while simple fistulas seldom need endoscopy, MRI or endoscopic ultrasound at all.^[1] The St James MRI grades give the radiological parallel (grade 4 disease commonest at 40%, then grade 3 at 25%, grade 1 at 19% in the 52-patient series).^[6]

The label predicts outcome: contemporary recurrence was 5.9% for simple versus 25.4% for complex fistula.^[8] German S3 converts the label into law — only superficial fistulas are laid open, all high fistulas get a sphincter-saving procedure, because postoperative incontinence tracks the thickness of divided sphincter directly.^[9]

Clinical assessment — history, examination, anoscopy, and the trap

History plus examination — internal-opening location, external-opening count, abscess detection, aetiology judgement, sphincter-integrity testing — establishes the operative indication on its own; reserve endosonography and MRI for complex abscesses or fistulas.^[9] The generalist review concurs: history and examination including anoscopy are usually sufficient, with further testing only in selected situations.^[10]

Name the atypical causes unprompted: hidradenitis suppurativa, trauma, malignancy, tuberculosis and Crohn disease all present as atypical fistulas.^[11] Keep malignancy in the differential of any benign-appearing anorectal condition, since symptoms mimic cancer.^[10] Chronic tracts can additionally undergo malignant transformation, and prolonged Crohn inflammation raises mucinous-adenocarcinoma risk — a reason surveillance never fully ends.^[7]

Goodsall versus the Midline rule — the examiner's favourite argument

State Goodsall (1887) precisely, then dismantle its anterior half: posterior external openings track curvilinearly to posterior midline, anterior openings run radially — except Cirocco's 216 complete submuscular fistulas showed 90% posterior-to-midline but only 49% anterior-radial, with 71% of anterior tracts curving to midline instead; overall 81% of all tracts coursed to midline (51% posterior, 30% anterior).^[13]

Modern numbers agree: 78.3% overall accuracy in simple fistulas, peaking at 97.1% for superficial and 98.2% for midline-external disease but falling to 69.3% for transsphincteric tracts.^[14] Anterior-tract accuracy was 52.4% against 73% posterior; long anterior fistulas over 3 cm defy the rule by tracking to a midline anterior origin, while short posterior ones often run radially rather than to midline.^[15] The 909-patient 3D-EAUS study found Goodsall–truth concordance 0.601 (good) versus Midline 0.416 (moderate) — both highly predictive posteriorly, both weaker for anterior tracts, women, and distant external openings.^[16]

Take the Midline position for anterior disease: the midline is the dominant internal origin of all fistulas at up to 95% accuracy, and the Midline rule lifts overall predictive value from 49% to 71% (57–62% men, 31–90% women) — with the explicit warning that Goodsall-guided anterior surgery in women, where incontinence stakes are highest, risks disastrous consequences.^[17] Crohn anatomy reinforces caution: anterior external openings are significantly commoner in Crohn patients and in women, and the rule fails equally in Crohn and non-Crohn disease.^[18] And never decide on Goodsall alone: hydrogen-peroxide localisation found overall positive predictive value 59%, collapsing to 41% in recurrent fistulas.^[19]

^{[20] [14] [17] [19]}

Simple preoperative examination — external-opening distance (2.8 cm simple versus 4.4 cm complex), location, prior attempts — reliably predicts complexity and selects who needs sophisticated work-up; the first definitive operation matters most, so triage may mean referral to a specialist colorectal team.^[20]

Imaging — MRI decides, EAUS screens, ACR directs

MRI is the reference standard: high-resolution mapping of tract origin, course and secondary extensions for classification and planning.^[7] Against surgery, MRI Parks concordance reached 96% with 75% internal-opening identification (sensitivity 63%, specificity 92%).^[21] Preoperative MRI is associated with statistically significantly better results and prognosis, and dominates guidelines as the recommended diagnostic.^[26][63] MRI is superior to EAUS particularly for supralevator and extrasphincteric disease.^[26]

3D endoanal ultrasound is the screening partner: pooled total accuracy 91% with internal-opening AUC 0.86 — a legitimate first-line tool, but combine with MRI for complex secondary extensions.^[22] The 2026 meta-analysis of 32 studies and 4,104 cases refines the pairing: EAUS sensitivity 0.89–0.96 for inter/transsphincteric disease but only 0.72–0.75 for supra/extrasphincteric; MRI specificity exceeds 0.94 throughout; contrast-enhanced MRI exceeds 0.90 on both — EAUS first, contrast MRI for complex or unclear cases.^[23] The older St Mark's meta-analysis (sensitivities both 0.87; MRI specificity 0.69 versus EAUS 0.43) reminds the viva that both specificities were diagnostically poor with high heterogeneity — evidence has moved on since.^[24] In one 67-patient surgical series pelvic 3D ultrasound matched MRI at 94–98% across internal openings, fistula detection and Parks assignment.^[25]

The ACR Appropriateness Criteria organise ordering into four scenarios — suspected fistula/abscess, rectovesical/rectovaginal fistula, proctitis/pouchitis, post-proctectomy complications — each rated usually/may be/usually-not appropriate by annually reviewed multidisciplinary GRADE methodology.^[27] In Crohn disease specifically, MRI is the recognised gold standard (radiation-free detail), with endoanal and transperineal ultrasound as alternatives only where expertise exists.^[61]

Abscess management — drain urgently, stage the tract

Abscess treatment is urgent: incision and drainage, under local anaesthesia whenever possible, with definitive tract treatment deferred to a second stage — infection control first, continence always.^[28] The operative hallmark is source control without sphincter injury, and abscess anatomy dictates the drainage strategy that minimises later complex fistula formation.^[3]

German S3 staging: drain thoroughly preserving sphincter; primary fistulotomy only for superficial fistulas and only by experienced surgeons; unclear or high findings wait for a second procedure.^[9] Primary fistulotomy at index drainage remains controversial with only selected situations appropriate.^[3] Office drainage suffices for superficial perianal abscesses sparing sphincter; extensive abscesses or suspected fistulas go to theatre.^[10]

Antibiotics — reserved by default, debated for prevention

Reserve antibiotics for extensive cellulitis, systemic infection or immunocompromise — they are not curative of fistula disease.^[3][28] Whether they prevent later fistula formation is genuinely unresolved, with randomised evidence pointing both ways — quote both sides and then take the guideline position.^[3]

For prevention: 7 days of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole after drainage cut fistula formation (adjusted odds ratio 0.371) in a 307-patient single-blind RCT, with male sex a risk factor (odds ratio 3.11).^[29] A first-episode cohort of 276 found 54% versus 75% fistula rates at one year with antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio 0.53).^[30] The 6-study meta-analysis (817 patients) found 16% versus 24% fistula rates with a significant protective effect (odds ratio 0.64).^[4]

Against: the Turkish double-blind multicentre placebo RCT (183 patients, amoxicillin-clavulanate 10 days) showed no protection — fistulas in 37.3% on antibiotics versus 22.4% on placebo — with ischiorectal (odds ratio 7.82) and intersphincteric (odds ratio 3.35) abscess location driving risk.^[31] The exam synthesis: current guidelines support postoperative antibiotics only weakly on low-quality evidence, so a 5–10-day empiric course may be offered to otherwise healthy drained patients — but never as a substitute for drainage and surveillance.^[4]

Simple fistula — fistulotomy, priced honestly

Examination under anaesthesia with fistulotomy remains the gold standard for simple fistulas: superficial tracts are opened to the gland and heal by secondary intention.^[1][11] The simple-fistula systematic review (66 studies) gives the headline: 93.7% weighted healing across 4,883 sphincter-cutting cases — against 12.7% any postoperative continence impairment; sphincter-sparing alternatives in simple disease healed 77.7% with no significant incontinence signal.^[32]

The Danish review compresses it further: fistulotomy heals over 90%, risks incontinence, and stays reserved for simple fistulas.^[69] Fistulotomy with primary sphincteroplasty extends the option: 93% healing at nearly 5 years in 203 patients with 13% continence impairment (mainly de novo soiling at 10%), and 91.9% primary healing with only 4.9% minor and no major incontinence in a 382-patient complex series — with female sex, diabetes, smoking, BMI above 28 and operating beyond 60 minutes predicting recurrence.^[34][35]

For low fistula specifically, the 6-RCT meta-analysis (565 patients) finds fistulectomy and fistulotomy indistinguishable in operative time, healing time, complications, recurrence and incontinence — no evidence either is better.^[33]

Complex fistula strategy — seton, stage, spare

Complex disease is staged: a draining seton first, then sphincter-saving repair with long-term healing around 50%.^[69] Ambulatory seton placement followed by superficial fistulotomy healed 80.2% by intention-to-treat and 98.7% per-protocol, with 2.7% incontinence confined to previously operated patients and 2.7% recurrence.^[36] The decisional algorithm (206 patients) formalises it — drainage-plus-seton for trans/supra-sphincteric sepsis, fistulotomy only for submucosal/low disease, partial fistulectomy with cutting seton sparing internal sphincter for transsphincteric fistula — achieving 100% healing with transient soiling in 11.5%, no major incontinence, ~3% recurrence, and cutting limited to one case in five.^[37] A slowly-cutting loose seton with staged fistulotomy healed 95% initially (93% at 55 months) with continence scores unchanged-to-better and very high satisfaction — at the price of a median 13 months under seton.^[38]

The umbrella verdict from 52 randomised trials across 14 treatments: no significant short- or long-term healing difference between any treatments for simple or complex disease — technique selection is a continence trade-off, not a healing hierarchy.^[39] No gold standard exists for complex cryptoglandular fistula, so frame every plan as balancing incontinence against recurrence with the patient.^[71][70]

LIFT — the evidence chain with its caveats

The origin: ligation of the intersphincteric tract in 45 transsphincteric/complex fistulas achieved 82.2% primary healing at a median 7 weeks with no significant morbidity — total sphincter preservation by design.^[40] The early systematic review (24 articles, 1,110 patients, mostly fistulotomy-ineligible complex disease) pooled 76.4% success with 0% incontinence and 5.5% complications — and found no added benefit from pre-LIFT seton drainage or combined procedures.^[41]

The head-to-head win: LIFT beat endorectal advancement flap 76.2% to 54.7% at 6 months in an 84-patient RCT, with shorter operating time (46 versus 89 minutes) and better early pain and quality of life.^[42] Adding a bioprosthetic plug (235-patient multicentre RCT) raised 6-month healing to 94.0% versus 83.9% and shortened healing from 30 to 22 days.^[43]

The caveats the examiner will probe: Danish long-term data show only 42% healed after the first LIFT at a median 274 days, with late recurrences in previously asymptomatic patients — follow-up beyond 250 days is mandatory, though repeat LIFT downgrades tracts and 86% ultimately succeed.^[44] And the evidence base is thinner than its reputation: only 7% of LIFT publications are RCTs, just one measured incontinence as its primary outcome, continence assessment is heterogeneous and subjective, and no study has performed postoperative anatomical sphincter assessment.^[45] Still, the network meta-analysis ranks LIFT best for minimising incontinence in both simple (99.1% of comparisons) and complex (86.2%) disease.^[39]

Flap, plug, VAAFT, TROPIS — the sphincter-saving menu

Endorectal advancement flap closes the internal opening with mobilised tissue: the 30-year review (35 studies, 2,065 patients) gives weighted success 80.8% cryptoglandular and 64% Crohn, with incontinence 13.2% and 9.4%.^[46] Ten-year data show 76.2% success with 90% of recurrences in year one but continence worsening in 16.9% over time.^[47] Head-to-head, flap beat collagen plug 63% to 32%.^[48] Yet the RCT-only high-fistula meta-analysis found flap-versus-plug no different in recurrence or complications, with no technique superior to any other — matching German S3 (reconstructions roughly equal, biomaterial occlusion lower cure).^[49][9]

Video-assisted treatment offers inspection plus closure: 14 trials and 1,201 patients pooled to 83% success, 16% recurrence, 11% complications, with 97.6% internal-opening detection.^[50] TROPIS long-term data (28 complex fistulas, ~2-year follow-up) show 36-day mean healing but 32.1% recurrence beyond 90 days, with early mild incontinence in 42.9% settling to 17.8% persistent mild and none major.^[51]

Consent with the complex-disease series: cutting seton healed 94% and flap 89% — but detailed questionnaires found 50% flatus/liquid incontinence episodes that routine clinic review had missed, a reminder that continence harm hides from casual follow-up.^[52]

Horseshoe disease — drain the deep postanal space

Horseshoe sepsis is a referral disease: bilateral abscesses in over half, 54.8% Crohn prevalence, a median four operations, Crohn patients needing more surgery and the only stoma-bearers.^[53] The modified Hanley procedure — deep postanal-space drainage with posterior midline cutting seton plus draining setons — healed 91.3% within ~8 months with patients functional throughout and no incontinence complaints; diversion alone had resolved nothing.^[54] Posterior midline sphincterotomy patients were likelier to end asymptomatic.^[53]

Crohn perianal fistulas — combined doctrine, sequenced strictly

Sequence before drugs: accurate pelvic MRI, examination under anaesthesia with abscess drainage and seton insertion — then immunosuppression and anti-TNF. Corticosteroids do not work in fistulising disease; azathioprine responders halved perianal surgery (odds ratio 0.36) but complex disease generally needs anti-TNF plus azathioprine combination.^[57] The 24-guideline review confirms EUA-plus-seton as universal for abscess and frequent for symptomatic complex disease — while seton-removal timing stays heterogeneous and unstandardised.^[58] French consensus stages it: prolonged loose-seton drainage to luminal and perineal remission, then seton removal or glue for simple disease, seton removal plus advancement flap for complex — diversion only as last resort.^[59]

PISA-II is the trial to quote: short-course anti-TNF plus surgical closure beat 1-year anti-TNF alone for 18-month MRI healing (32% versus 9%) with far fewer reinterventions (13% versus 43%) — counsel closure for amenable disease, while noting clinical closure did not significantly differ and recurrence struck only radiologically unhealed tracts.^[55] Across series, seton closure ranges 13.6–100% and anti-TNF closure 16.7–93% with wide recurrence — combination therapy with temporary seton, immunomodulator and anti-TNF is the favoured synthesis where tested.^[56] After anti-TNF failure, options narrow: vedolizumab succeeded in only 22.5% of active perianal disease, with 30.6% recurrence even when starting inactive.^[60]

Crohn tracts behave differently on imaging: high origin near the anorectal junction, branching beyond Parks, with proctitis — serial MRI distinguishes fluid-persistent (relapse-prone) from fibrosis-predominant (favourable) tracts to monitor therapy.^[7] Up to 20% of Crohn patients develop perianal fistulising disease with major morbidity, and most still need surgery despite anti-TNF advances.^[61]

Fournier gangrene — the differential that kills

Fournier gangrene is rapidly progressive necrotising fasciitis of the perineal, perianal or genital regions — polymicrobial, typically in diabetic, alcoholic or immunosuppressed men — beginning as perineal cellulitis, then swollen, exquisitely painful necrotic tissue progressing to sepsis and death; treatment is haemodynamic stabilisation plus broad-spectrum antibiotics plus emergent surgical debridement, with incision and drainage where abscess coexists.^[65] CT maps extent including retroperitoneal spread: asymmetric fascial thickening, fluid collections, abscess — with subcutaneous emphysema the hallmark that is nonetheless absent in some cases.^[64]

Laboratory honesty: LRINEC at 6 or above gives only modest discrimination between Fournier and perianal abscess (C-statistic 0.736), while the CRP-to-prealbumin ratio reaches 0.908 — evaluate carefully for Fournier with prealbumin below 91 mg/L and ratio at or above 1.52.^[67] And in perianal sepsis with blood on rectal examination and unexplained fever, exclude rectal-cancer-induced Fournier — tumour first, then oncological therapy timed to wound resolution.^[66]

Consent, recurrence, and the closing viva line

Recurrence drivers from multivariate analysis: complex fistula and unidentified internal opening; prior incontinence dominates continence risk, with fistulotomy the riskiest technique once pre-incontinent patients are excluded.^[68] Contemporary predictors add diabetes and prior abscess, with LIFT and plug/biologic procedures carrying 50%-plus recurrence in that series — while sphincter-sparing versus cutting approaches did not differ in incontinence or quality of life.^[8] Recurrence after repair appears at a median 4 months, so surveillance must outlast early healing.^[68]

The 15-guideline synthesis anchors practice: MRI predominant for diagnosis; cutting setons given low recommendation everywhere for incontinence; push-pull flap for high disease and LIFT for newly identified high sphincter-penetrating fistulas among the favoured options — while flagging that over half the guidance documents carry methodological limitations.^[63]

Revision summary

• Cryptoglandular dentate-line sepsis is the cause; abscess and fistula are one disease — 30–50% fistulise after drainage.^[1][3]
• Parks (1976) still rules: inter/trans-sphincteric dominate; ~2–4% defy classification.^[1][5][6]
• Complex means high, branched, abscessed, noncryptoglandular, anterior-in-female or recurrent — recurrence 25.4% vs 5.9%.^[1][8]
• Examine first (anoscopy usually enough); image complex disease; never miss high intermuscular sepsis.^[9][12]
• Goodsall ~75% overall, 52% anterior — use the Midline rule anteriorly, never alone, never in recurrent disease (41%).^[14][17][19]
• MRI reference (96% Parks concordance); 3D-EAUS first-line (91%); CE-MRI for complex.^[21][22][23]
• Drain abscesses urgently under local where possible; stage tract repair; primary fistulotomy only if superficial.^[28][9]
• Antibiotics reserved; prevention evidence splits (OR 0.37–0.64 for, negative placebo RCT against) — offer, don't rely.^[29][4][31]
• Simple fistula: fistulotomy heals 93.7% with 12.7% continence cost; fistulectomy equal.^[32][33]
• Complex: seton then spare (~50-80% healing); 52-RCT verdict — no healing hierarchy, choose by continence.^[69][39]
• LIFT: 76–82% early, best continence ranking, plug boosts to 94% — but only 42% first-shot at long follow-up; follow beyond 250 days.^[40][43][44]
• Flap 81%/64% (crypto/Crohn); plug inferior head-to-head but equal in RCT-only MA; VAAFT 83%; TROPIS 32% late recurrence.^{[46][48][50][51]}
• Horseshoe: modified Hanley 91% healed, diversion alone never works.^[54]
• Crohn: MRI, EUA-plus-seton, then anti-TNF combo; PISA-II closure heals MRI 32% vs 9%.^[57][55]
• Fournier: debride tonight; CT maps it; LRINEC modest (0.74), CRP/PAB better (0.91).^[65][64][67]
• Recurrence: complex fistula plus missed internal opening; prior incontinence predicts worse.^[68]

78.3% overall in simple fistulas, best in superficial (97.1%) and midline-external (98.2%) disease (PMID 28697591); 74.75% with anterior-tract accuracy 52.4% versus posterior 73% (PMID 38694374); n=909 3D-EAUS concordance 0.601 Goodsall versus 0.416 Midline, both weakest anteriorly, in women and with distant external openings (PMID 35217938).^[15] Price it honestly: 12.7% any continence impairment after cutting in the SR (PMID 33387100); Vasilevsky 6% altered continence, permanent flatus/liquid loss 0.7% each, no solid-stool loss, 6.3% recurrence (PMID 3979223); sphincter-sparing alternatives in simple disease heal 77.7% with no significant incontinence signal (PMID 33387100).^[5] Win the head-to-head: LIFT beat ERAF 76.2% versus 54.7% at 6 months in an 84-patient RCT with shorter operating time and better early pain/QoL (PMID 36519904); adding a plug (LIFT-plug, n=235 multicentre RCT) raised 6-month healing 94.0% versus 83.9% and shortened healing 22 versus 30 days (PMID 26606429).^[43] horseshoe presentations are often bilateral abscesses (51.6%) with 54.8% Crohn prevalence in referral series, a median four operations, and Crohn patients needing more surgery with stomas only in Crohn disease (PMID 16708151).^[53]

References71ShowHide

1. [1]Dsouza R, Griner S, Mandava N Anorectal Fistula. StatPearls, 2026.PMID 32809492
2. [2]Sugrue J, Nordenstam J, Abcarian H, Bartholomew A, et al. Pathogenesis and persistence of cryptoglandular anal fistula: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol, 2017.PMID 28620877
3. [3]Kata A, Abelson JS Anorectal Abscess. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2024.PMID 39399133
4. [4]Mocanu V, Dang JT, Ladak F, Tian C, et al. Antibiotic use in prevention of anal fistulas following incision and drainage of anorectal abscesses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg, 2019.PMID 30773213
5. [5]Vasilevsky CA, Gordon PH Results of treatment of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum, 1985.PMID 3979223
6. [6]Ozkavukcu E, Haliloglu N, Erden A Frequencies of perianal fistula types using two classification systems. Jpn J Radiol, 2011.PMID 21717296
7. [7]Lanier MH, Hoegger MJ, Itani M, Fraum TJ, et al. MRI of Perianal Fistulas: Anatomy, Diagnosis, and Perianal Crohn Disease Treatment Monitoring. Radiographics, 2026.PMID 41678368
8. [8]Khan S, Kotcher R, Herman P, Wang L, et al. Predictors of recurrence and long-term patient reported outcomes following surgical repair of anal fistula, a retrospective analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2024.PMID 38466439
9. [9]Ommer A, Herold A, Berg E, Fürst A, et al. German S3 guidelines: anal abscess and fistula (second revised version). Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2017.PMID 28251361
10. [10]Cohee MW, Hurff A, Gazewood JD Benign Anorectal Conditions: Evaluation and Management. Am Fam Physician, 2020.PMID 31894930
11. [11]Nottingham JM, Rentea RM Anal Fistulotomy. StatPearls, 2026.PMID 32310458
12. [12]Bernard D, Tassé D, Morgan S High intermuscular anal abscess and fistula: analysis of 25 cases. Can J Surg, 1983.PMID 6825001
13. [13]Cirocco WC, Reilly JC Challenging the predictive accuracy of Goodsall's rule for anal fistulas. Dis Colon Rectum, 1992.PMID 1587170
14. [14]Jayarajah U, Samarasekera DN Predictive accuracy of Goodsall’s rule for fistula-in-ano. Ceylon Med J, 2017.PMID 28697591
15. [15]Bakir QK, Noori IF, Noori AF Accuracy prediction of Goodsall's rule for anal fistulas of crypotogladular origin, is still standing? Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2024.PMID 38694374
16. [16]Garcia-Botello S, Martín-Arévalo J, Martí-Fernández R, Moro-Valdezate D, et al. Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasound to assess the validity of Goodsall's Rule and the Midline Rule in predicting the path of perianal fistula-in-ano and the location of the internal opening. Tech Coloproctol, 2022.PMID 35217938
17. [17]Cirocco WC, Reilly JC It is time to retire Goodsall's Rule: the Midline Rule is a more accurate predictor of the true and natural course of anal fistulas. Tech Coloproctol, 2020.PMID 32107684
18. [18]Coremans G, Dockx S, Wyndaele J, Hendrickx A Do anal fistulas in Crohn's disease behave differently and defy Goodsall's rule more frequently than fistulas that are cryptoglandular in origin? Am J Gastroenterol, 2003.PMID 14687825
19. [19]Gunawardhana PA, Deen KI Comparison of hydrogen peroxide instillation with Goodsall's rule for fistula-in-ano. ANZ J Surg, 2001.PMID 11504291
20. [20]Becker A, Koltun L, Sayfan J Simple clinical examination predicts complexity of perianal fistula. Colorectal Dis, 2006.PMID 16919114
21. [21]Holzer B, Rosen HR, Urban M, Anzböck W, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of perianal fistulas: predictive value for Parks classification and identification of the internal opening. Colorectal Dis, 2000.PMID 23578152
22. [22]Li J, Chen SN, Lin YY, Zhu ZM, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Endoanal Ultrasound for Anal Fistula: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Turk J Gastroenterol, 2021.PMID 34872892
23. [23]Qi C, Li J Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Endoanal Ultrasound Compared with MRI in Anal Fistula: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acad Radiol, 2026.PMID 41714221
24. [24]Siddiqui MR, Ashrafian H, Tozer P, Daulatzai N, et al. A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of endoanal ultrasound and MRI for perianal fistula assessment. Dis Colon Rectum, 2012.PMID 22513437
25. [25]Ren J, Bai W, Gu L, Li X, et al. Three-dimensional pelvic ultrasound is a practical tool for the assessment of anal fistula. BMC Gastroenterol, 2023.PMID 37098484
26. [26]Varsamis N, Kosmidis C, Chatzimavroudis G, Sapalidis K, et al. Perianal fistulas: A review with emphasis on preoperative imaging. Adv Med Sci, 2022.PMID 35134600
27. [27]Levy AD, Liu PS, Kim DH, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Anorectal Disease. J Am Coll Radiol, 2021.PMID 34794588
28. [28]de Parades V, Zeitoun JD, Atienza P Cryptoglandular anal fistula. J Visc Surg, 2010.PMID 20822966
29. [29]Ghahramani L, Minaie MR, Arasteh P, Hosseini SV, et al. Antibiotic therapy for prevention of fistula in-ano after incision and drainage of simple perianal abscess: A randomized single blind clinical trial. Surgery, 2017.PMID 28822559
30. [30]Blondin S, Lobo D, Egal A, Ysmail-Dahlouk S, et al. Antibiotic use during the first episode of acute perianal sepsis: a still-open question. Ann Coloproctol, 2025.PMID 39895142
31. [31]Sözener U, Gedik E, Kessaf Aslar A, Ergun H, et al. Does adjuvant antibiotic treatment after drainage of anorectal abscess prevent development of anal fistulas? A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study. Dis Colon Rectum, 2011.PMID 21730779
32. [32]Litta F, Parello A, Ferri L, Torrecilla NO, et al. Simple fistula-in-ano: is it all simple? A systematic review. Tech Coloproctol, 2021.PMID 33387100
33. [33]Xu Y, Liang S, Tang W Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fistulectomy versus fistulotomy for low anal fistula. Springerplus, 2016.PMID 27777858
34. [34]Litta F, Parello A, De Simone V, Grossi U, et al. Fistulotomy and primary sphincteroplasty for anal fistula: long-term data on continence and patient satisfaction. Tech Coloproctol, 2019.PMID 31538298
35. [35]Ozcan C, Colak T, Turkmenoglu MO, Bozkurt H, et al. Fistulotomy with primary sphincteroplasty for complex anal fistulas: Should we be concerned about incontinence? Surgery, 2026.PMID 42386420
36. [36]Gamelas V, Simões G, Santos S, Loureiro R, et al. Ambulatory seton placement followed by fistulotomy: efficacy and safety for perianal fistula treatment. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021.PMID 32925500
37. [37]Cariati A Fistulotomy or seton in anal fistula: a decisional algorithm. Updates Surg, 2013.PMID 23729353
38. [38]Schrader L, Brandstrup B, Olaison G Slowly cutting, loose seton ligature and staged fistulotomy for healing of idiopathic perianal fistula and influence on anal continence. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2023.PMID 37673848
39. [39]Bhat S, Xu W, Varghese C, Dubey N, et al. Efficacy of different surgical treatments for management of anal fistula: a network meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol, 2023.PMID 37460830
40. [40]Shanwani A, Nor AM, Amri N Ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT): a sphincter-saving technique for fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum, 2010.PMID 20010348
41. [41]Hong KD, Kang S, Kalaskar S, Wexner SD Ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) to treat anal fistula: systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol, 2014.PMID 24957361
42. [42]Kumar P, Sarthak S, Singh PK, Mishra TS, et al. Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistulous Tract vs Endorectal Advancement Flap for High-Type Fistula in Ano: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Am Coll Surg, 2023.PMID 36519904
43. [43]Han JG, Wang ZJ, Zheng Y, Chen CW, et al. Ligation of Intersphincteric Fistula Tract vs Ligation of the Intersphincteric Fistula Tract Plus a Bioprosthetic Anal Fistula Plug Procedure in Patients With Transsphincteric Anal Fistula: Early Results of a Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial. Ann Surg, 2016.PMID 26606429
44. [44]Osterkamp J, Gocht-Jensen P, Hougaard K, Nordentoft T Long-term outcomes in patients after ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract. Dan Med J, 2019.PMID 30910002
45. [45]Tan IJ, Siew BE, Lau J, Yap CPL, et al. Is the ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedure truly a sphincter preserving procedure for anal fistula? A scoping review of the literature. Eur J Med Res, 2025.PMID 40186276
46. [46]Soltani A, Kaiser AM Endorectal advancement flap for cryptoglandular or Crohn's fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum, 2010.PMID 20305451
47. [47]Chaveli Diaz C, Esquiroz Lizaur I, Marzo Virto J, Oteiza Martínez F, et al. Fistulectomy and endorectal advancement flap repair for cryptoglandular anal fistula: recurrence and functional outcome over 10 years of follow-up. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2021.PMID 33580275
48. [48]Christoforidis D, Pieh MC, Madoff RD, Mellgren AF Treatment of transsphincteric anal fistulas by endorectal advancement flap or collagen fistula plug: a comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum, 2009.PMID 19273951
49. [49]Göttgens KW, Smeets RR, Stassen LP, Beets G, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical interventions for high cryptoglandular perianal fistula. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2015.PMID 25487858
50. [50]Tian Z, Li YL, Nan SJ, Xiu WC, et al. Video-assisted anal fistula treatment for complex anorectal fistulas in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol, 2022.PMID 35347492
51. [51]Pehlevan-Özel H, Yurdakul ZN, Martlı HF, Özmen SN, et al. TROPIS Procedure in Complex Anal Fistulas: Single-Center Long-Term Results. ANZ J Surg, 2026.PMID 41313043
52. [52]Joy HA, Williams JG The outcome of surgery for complex anal fistula. Colorectal Dis, 2002.PMID 12780595
53. [53]Rosen SA, Colquhoun P, Efron J, Vernava AM 3rd, et al. Horseshoe abscesses and fistulas: how are we doing? Surg Innov, 2006.PMID 16708151
54. [54]Browder LK, Sweet S, Kaiser AM Modified Hanley procedure for management of complex horseshoe fistulae. Tech Coloproctol, 2009.PMID 19813077
55. [55]Meima-van Praag EM, van Rijn KL, Wasmann KATGM, Snijder HJ, et al. Short-term anti-TNF therapy with surgical closure versus anti-TNF therapy in the treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn's disease (PISA-II): a patient preference randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022.PMID 35427495
56. [56]de Groof EJ, Sahami S, Lucas C, Ponsioen CY, et al. Treatment of perianal fistula in Crohn's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing seton drainage and anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment. Colorectal Dis, 2016.PMID 26921847
57. [57]Ghosh S, Iacucci M Role of immunosuppressives in special situations: perianal disease and postoperative period. Dig Dis, 2014.PMID 25531359
58. [58]Medawar E, Chaudhary H, Zoughlami A, Ekhdoura M, et al. Systematic Review of Published Guidelines: Recommendations for Exams Under Anaesthesia, Seton Insertion and Timing of Seton Removal for Perianal and Rectovaginal Fistulising Crohn's Disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2026.PMID 41693361
59. [59]Bouchard D, Abramowitz L, Bouguen G, Brochard C, et al. Anoperineal lesions in Crohn's disease: French recommendations for clinical practice. Tech Coloproctol, 2017.PMID 28929282
60. [60]Chapuis-Biron C, Bourrier A, Nachury M, Nancey S, et al. Vedolizumab for perianal Crohn's disease: a multicentre cohort study in 151 patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2020.PMID 32080886
61. [61]Habeeb H, Chen L, De Kock I, Bhatnagar G, et al. Imaging in perianal fistulising Crohn's disease: A practical guide for the gastroenterologist. World J Gastroenterol, 2025.PMID 40937454
62. [62]Amato A, Bottini C, De Nardi P, Giamundo P, et al. Evaluation and management of perianal abscess and anal fistula: SICCR position statement. Tech Coloproctol, 2020.PMID 31974827
63. [63]Lu MY, Wang J, Wang ZC, Cai ZL, et al. Diagnosis and treatment for anal fistula: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements. Front Surg, 2025.PMID 40672439
64. [64]Levenson RB, Singh AK, Novelline RA Fournier gangrene: role of imaging. Radiographics, 2008.PMID 18349455
65. [65]Gadler T, Huey S, Hunt K Recognizing Fournier's Gangrene in the Emergency Department. Adv Emerg Nurs J, 2019.PMID 30702531
66. [66]Bruketa T, Majerovic M, Augustin G Rectal cancer and Fournier's gangrene - current knowledge and therapeutic options. World J Gastroenterol, 2015.PMID 26290629
67. [67]Zhu JL, Gao HJ, Yin ZT The CRP/PAB ratio outperforms the LRINEC score in early diagnosis of Fournier's gangrene. Surg Pract Sci, 2024.PMID 39844948
68. [68]Jordán J, Roig JV, García-Armengol J, García-Granero E, et al. Risk factors for recurrence and incontinence after anal fistula surgery. Colorectal Dis, 2010.PMID 19220375
69. [69]Perregaard H, Dalby HR, Hagen KB, Dige A, et al. [Cryptoglandular anal fistulas]. Ugeskr Laeger, 2021.PMID 34498577
70. [70]Akinmoladun O, Hatch QM Anal Cryptoglandular Suppuration: Evidence-Based Management. Surg Clin North Am, 2024.PMID 38677815
71. [71]Garg P, Sodhi SS, Garg N Management of Complex Cryptoglandular Anal Fistula: Challenges and Solutions. Clin Exp Gastroenterol, 2020.PMID 33204136