Advances in medical sciences · 2022
Perianal fistulas: A review with emphasis on preoperative imaging.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Varsamis Nikolaos, Kosmidis Christoforos, Chatzimavroudis Grigorios, Sapalidis Konstantinos, Efthymiadis Christoforos, Kiouti Fani Apostolidou, Ioannidis Aris, Arnaoutoglou Christos, Zarogoulidis Paul, Kesisoglou Isaak
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We aim to present a comprehensive literature review which focuses on the preoperative imaging of perianal fistulas.
MATERIAL/METHODS: Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) are the two first-line imaging modalities for the preoperative evaluation of patients with perianal fistulas. We conducted a search in PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar concerning articles comparing pelvic MRI with EAUS, which were published from 1994 until 2019.
RESULTS: In most articles, pelvic MRI is superior to EAUS for the evaluation of perianal fistulas (especially for supralevator and extrasphincteric ones). Preoperative pelvic MRI is associated with statistically significant better results and prognosis after surgical treatment of the disease. Preoperative EAUS poses high sensitivity and specificity in identifying intersphincteric and transsphincteric perianal fistulas, as well as the internal opening of a fistula-in-ano. There is only one meta-analysis which compares the diagnostic accuracy of the two mentioned imaging modalities in preoperative fistula detection. Sensitivity of both - pelvic MRI and EAUS, is acceptably high (0.87). Specificity of pelvic MRI is 0.69 in comparison to EAUS (0.43), but both values are considered low.
CONCLUSIONS: Future well-designed prospective studies are needed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of pelvic MRI and EAUS in the preoperative assessment of patients with perianal fistulas. Moreover, the combination of pelvic MRI and EAUS should also be studied, since several published articles suggest that it could lead to improved diagnostic accuracy. A novel treatment algorithm for perianal fistulas could arise from this study.
MATERIAL/METHODS: Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) are the two first-line imaging modalities for the preoperative evaluation of patients with perianal fistulas. We conducted a search in PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar concerning articles comparing pelvic MRI with EAUS, which were published from 1994 until 2019.
RESULTS: In most articles, pelvic MRI is superior to EAUS for the evaluation of perianal fistulas (especially for supralevator and extrasphincteric ones). Preoperative pelvic MRI is associated with statistically significant better results and prognosis after surgical treatment of the disease. Preoperative EAUS poses high sensitivity and specificity in identifying intersphincteric and transsphincteric perianal fistulas, as well as the internal opening of a fistula-in-ano. There is only one meta-analysis which compares the diagnostic accuracy of the two mentioned imaging modalities in preoperative fistula detection. Sensitivity of both - pelvic MRI and EAUS, is acceptably high (0.87). Specificity of pelvic MRI is 0.69 in comparison to EAUS (0.43), but both values are considered low.
CONCLUSIONS: Future well-designed prospective studies are needed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of pelvic MRI and EAUS in the preoperative assessment of patients with perianal fistulas. Moreover, the combination of pelvic MRI and EAUS should also be studied, since several published articles suggest that it could lead to improved diagnostic accuracy. A novel treatment algorithm for perianal fistulas could arise from this study.