» Articles » PMID: 36855724

MRI of Recurrent Fistula-in-Ano: Is It Different from Treatment-Naïve Fistula-in-Ano and How Does It Correlate with Anal Sphincter Morphology?

Overview
Publisher Thieme
Specialty Radiology
Date 2023 Mar 1
PMID 36855724
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

 The main aim of this study was to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of recurrent and treatment-naïve fistula-in-ano and to correlate imaging findings with anal sphincter morphology in recurrent fistula-in-ano.  This is a retrospective study of adult patients who underwent MRI for suspected fistula-in-ano in 2018. After excluding patients with alternative diagnosis, patients were stratified into recurrent (  = 103) and treatment-naïve (  = 106) fistula-in-ano groups. Two blinded radiologists reread MRI scans in consensus for fistula characteristics and anal sphincter morphology. We compared imaging features of recurrent and treatment-naïve fistula-in-ano, assessed the incidence of anal sphincter scarring among patients with recurrent fistula-in-ano, and studied its association with fistula features.  Two-hundred nine patients (187 males) with mean age of 40.6 (standard deviation: 12.2) years were included. Trans-sphincteric, inter-sphincteric, extra-sphincteric, and supra-sphincteric fistula-in-ano were seen in 63.6, 33, 2.9, and 0.5%, respectively. There were secondary tracts, supralevator extension, and secondary cause for fistula in 49.3, 12.9, and 14.8%, respectively. There was no difference between the fistula features of recurrent and treatment-naïve fistula-in-ano, except for significantly fewer external openings among recurrent fistula-in-ano (  = 0.005). Among patients with recurrent fistula-in-ano, MRI detected anal sphincter defect/scarring was seen in 53.4% (  = 55) and was significantly associated with posterior fistula-in-ano (  = 0.031), collections and/or supralevator extension (  = 0.010), and secondary tracts (  = 0.015).  Fistula features of recurrent and treatment-naïve patients were mostly similar. There was high incidence (53.4%) of MRI-identified anal sphincter scarring/defect among recurrent fistula-in-ano, which was significantly associated with posterior fistula, collections, supra or translevator extension, and secondary tracts. MRI-identified anal sphincter scarring is very common among patients with recurrent fistula-in-ano and seen in more than half of them.There was significantly higher incidence of sphincter scarring among patients who had posterior fistula, collections, supralevator/translevator extension, and secondary tracts.

Citing Articles

Use of Non-Thermal Plasma as Postoperative Therapy in Anal Fistula: Clinical Experience and Results.

Lopez-Callejas R, Velasco-Garcia P, Betancourt-Angeles M, Rodriguez-Mendez B, Berrones-Stringel G, Jaramillo-Martinez C Biomedicines. 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39200330 PMC: 11351551. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12081866.

References
1.
Jayarajah U, Wickramasinghe D, Samarasekera D . Anal incontinence and quality of life following operative treatment of simple cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a prospective study. BMC Res Notes. 2017; 10(1):572. PMC: 5688815. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-017-2895-z. View

2.
Abbas M, Jackson C, Haigh P . Predictors of outcome for anal fistula surgery. Arch Surg. 2011; 146(9):1011-6. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.197. View

3.
Dwarkasing R, Schouten W, Geeraedts T, Mitalas L, Hop W, Krestin G . Chronic anal and perianal pain resolved with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200(5):1034-41. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8813. View

4.
Parks A . Pathogenesis and treatment of fistuila-in-ano. Br Med J. 1961; 1(5224):463-9. PMC: 1953161. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.1.5224.463. View

5.
Li J, Yang W, Huang Z, Mei Z, Yang D, Wu H . [Clinical characteristics and risk factors for recurrence of anal fistula patients]. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2016; 19(12):1370-1374. View