Is anal endosonography useful in the study of recurrent complex fistula-in-ano?

Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines

The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.

The accuracy of a postprocessing technique--volume render mode--in three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography of anal abscesses and fistulas

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a 3-dimensional volume render mode endoanal ultrasonography in the assessment of anal abscesses and fistulas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography was performed preoperatively in 62 patients with clinical diagnoses of an anal abscess and/or an anal fistula. The accuracy of a volume render mode endoanal ultrasonography was evaluated blindly by 2 observers through a retrospective analysis of all the stored images of anal abscesses and fistulas. Differences in classification of the type of anal abscesses and in determination of the type and location of internal openings of anal fistulas were assessed.

RESULTS

In classification of the primary tract, the agreement between the volume render mode endoanal ultrasonography and surgery was much higher than that for the 3-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography (marginal homogeneity test P > .1, κ = 0.96, and marginal homogeneity test P = .0048, κ = 0.28, respectively). In localizing the internal openings and in classifying anal abscesses, the agreement for both methods with surgery was identical. The interobserver agreement showed complete agreement (100%) with regard to luminance and thickness parameters and very high accuracy for the opacity and filter parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that volume render mode endoanal ultrasonography is a useful adjunct method to the 3-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography, showing better classification results of the types of anal fistulas.

Prognostic value of endoanal ultrasound for fistula-in-ano: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

This study was designed to assess whether preoperative endoanal ultrasound plays a prognostic role in the surgical outcome of anal fistula.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted at a single institution.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients underwent 83 studies. Indications for endoanal ultrasound included complex fistulas and tracts, multiple external openings, recurrent fistulas, and/or failed previous surgical intervention. Mean age was 51.7 years. Fifty-three patients (77 percent) were men. Mean duration of symptoms was 3.1 years. Forty-nine patients (71 percent) had undergone previous surgical intervention to eradicate sepsis or fistula. Sixty patients (87 percent) underwent surgical interventions and were divided into two groups: Group A (73.3 percent), concordance with ultrasound findings; and Group B (26.7 percent), nonconcordance. Mean follow-up in the surgical group was 15.6 months. Measured outcome was total number of operations per patient and failure rate of primary surgical intervention. No difference was noted in mean total number of operations between Group A (1.57) and Group B (1.69) (P = 0.71). There was a statistically nonsignificant trend toward a higher failure rate of the primary intervention in the nonconcordance group [failure rate 18.2 percent in Group A vs. 25 percent in Group B (P = 0.72)].

CONCLUSIONS

The findings and accuracy of preoperative endoanal ultrasound did not influence postoperative outcome.