Transanal advancement flap repair (TAFR) has been advocated as the treatment of choice for @entity1 with @entity3622 . Recently, several studies have reported a significantly lower healing rate. We also encountered low healing rates after TAFR. In an attempt to improve our results, we added labial fat flap transposition (LFFT) to the TAFR of @entity3622 . The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome after TAFR and to investigate the impact of an additional LFFT. Between 1991 and 1997, 21 consecutive @entity1 of median age 33 years underwent TAFR. The etiology of the fistulas was: obstetric injury (n=9), cryptoglandular abscess (n=8) and wound infection after anterior anal repair (n=4). The first 9 @entity1 underwent TAFT with (n=3) or without (n=6) anterior anal repair. In the following 12 @entity1 , LFFT was added to the advancement flap. In 4 of these a concomitant anterior anal repair was performed. The median follow-up was 15 months. The overall healing rate was 48%. In the first 9 @entity1 , in whom no additional LFFT was performed, the rectovaginal fistula healed in 4 cases (44%). In the following 12 @entity1 in whom an additional LFFT was performed, a similar healing rate was observed (50%). In conclusion, the outcome of transanal advancement flap repair of @entity3622 is poor. Addition of a labial fat flap transposition does not improve this outcome.

The outcome of transanal advancement flap repair of XXXX is not improved by an additional labial fat flap transposition.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity3622 :: ('MESH:D012006', 'Disease') :: ['low rectovaginal fistulas', 'rectovaginal fistulas']
@entity3622 :: (MESH:D012006,Disease) :: ['rectovaginal fistulas']
