Surgical strategy for complex perineal small bowel fistula after pelvic malignancy: An etiology-driven approach

Table 1 Comparison of patient characteristics by surgical group, n (%)/mean ± SD

Characteristic	Group 1: Reconstruction (n = 15)	Group 2: Plication (n = 13)	P value
Race/ethnicity
Han Chinese	15 (100)	13 (100)
Age in years	58.7 ± 13.2	54.2 ± 11.9	0.36
Sex			0.47
Male	6 (40.0)	7 (53.8)
Female	9 (60.0)	6 (46.2)
Primary malignancy			0.73
Rectal/colorectal	8 (53.3)	9 (69.2)
Gynecological: Cervix/ovary	6 (40.0)	4 (30.8)
Other: Sarcoma/bladder	1 (6.7)	0 (0.0)
History of radiotherapy			0.69
Yes	9 (60)	9 (69.2)
No	6 (40)	4 (30.8)
Primary fistula etiology			0.02a
Empty pelvis syndrome	3 (20.0)	0 (0.0)
Tumor recurrence	4 (26.7)	8 (61.5)
Radiation enteritis	5 (33.3)	4 (30.8)
Surgical/iatrogenic injury	2 (13.3)	1 (7.7)
Other: Internal radiation	1 (6.7)	0 (0.0)

^aP < 0.05.

Data are n (%) unless indicated otherwise, presenting comparative demographic and baseline clinical variables between patients undergoing pelvic floor reconstruction (Group 1) and internal intestinal plication (group 2). Statistical significance was evaluated using the independent Student's t-test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. While demographic parameters were statistically identical, the primary etiology of the fistula demonstrated a significant divergence (P = 0.02), validating the core premise that the surgical strategy was heavily driven by the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.