Techniques in coloproctology · 2007
The role of transperineal ultrasonography in the assessment of the internal opening of cryptogenic anal fistula.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kleinübing H, Jannini J F, Campos A C L, Pinho M, Ferreira L C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of transperineal ultrasonography (TPUS) in the pre-operative identification of the internal opening of anal fistulas compared to conventional proctological examination and operative findings.
METHODS: Forty-three patients with anal fistula were assessed by TPUS with and without the use of hydrogen-peroxide injection (E-TPUS) in an attempt to identify the internal opening. Results were compared to preoperative conventional examination and operative findings.
RESULTS: Operative assessment showed an anterior internal opening in 29 patients (67.4%) and a posterior opening in 14 (32.6%). Compared to the operative findings, the agreement rate for the identification of the internal opening was 74.4% for physical examination alone, 93.0% for TPUS and 90.7% for E-TPUS. Physical examination was less accurate in detecting the internal opening than both TPUS (p=0.014) and E-TPUS (p=0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: TPUS and E-TPUS are superior to physical examination in the identification of internal openings in anal fistulas. Hydrogen peroxide injection does not provide additional advantages.
METHODS: Forty-three patients with anal fistula were assessed by TPUS with and without the use of hydrogen-peroxide injection (E-TPUS) in an attempt to identify the internal opening. Results were compared to preoperative conventional examination and operative findings.
RESULTS: Operative assessment showed an anterior internal opening in 29 patients (67.4%) and a posterior opening in 14 (32.6%). Compared to the operative findings, the agreement rate for the identification of the internal opening was 74.4% for physical examination alone, 93.0% for TPUS and 90.7% for E-TPUS. Physical examination was less accurate in detecting the internal opening than both TPUS (p=0.014) and E-TPUS (p=0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: TPUS and E-TPUS are superior to physical examination in the identification of internal openings in anal fistulas. Hydrogen peroxide injection does not provide additional advantages.