A comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and exam under anesthesia for evaluation of Crohn's perianal fistulas

被引:355
作者
Schwartz, DA
Wiersema, MJ
Dudiak, KM
Fletcher, JG
Clain, JE
Tremaine, WJ
Zinsmeister, AR
Norton, ID
Boardman, LA
Devine, RM
Wolff, BG
Young-Fadok, TM
Diehl, NN
Pemberton, JH
Sandborn, WJ
机构
[1] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Dept Radiol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[3] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Biostat Sect, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[4] Mayo Clin & Mayo Fdn, Div Colorectal Surg, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1053/gast.2001.28676
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background & Alms: To determine accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluation of Crohn's disease perianal fistulas. Methods: Thirty-four patients with suspected Crohn's disease perianal fistulas were prospectively enrolled in a blinded study comparing EUS, MRI, and examination under anesthesia (EUA). Fistulas were classified according to Parks' criteria, and a consensus gold standard was determined for each patient. Acceptable accuracy was defined as agreement with the consensus gold standard for greater than or equal to 85% of patients. Results. Three patients did not undergo MRI; 1 did not undergo EUS or EUA; and consensus could not be reached for 1. Thirty-two patients had 39 fistulas (20 trans-sphincteric, 5 extra-sphincteric, 6 recto-vaginal, 8 others) and 13 abscesses. The accuracy of all 3 modalities was greater than or equal to 85%: EUS 29 of 32 (91%, confidence interval [CI] 75%-98%), MRI 26 of 30 (87%, CI 69%-96%), and EUA 29 of 32 (91%, Cl 75%-98%). Accuracy was 100% when any 2 tests were combined. Conclusions. EUS, MRI, and EUA are accurate tests for determining fistula anatomy in patients with perianal Crohn's disease. The optimal approach may be combining any 2 of the 3 methods.
引用
收藏
页码:1064 / 1072
页数:9
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Prospective evaluation of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of fistula in ano
    Beckingham, IJ
    Spencer, JA
    Ward, J
    Dyke, GW
    Adams, C
    Ambrose, NS
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1996, 83 (10) : 1396 - 1398
  • [2] Preoperative MR imaging of anal fistulas: Does it really help the surgeon?
    Beets-Tan, RGH
    Beets, GL
    van der Hoop, AG
    Kessels, AFH
    Vliegen, RFA
    Baeten, CGMI
    van Engelshoven, JMA
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 218 (01) : 75 - 84
  • [3] BERLINER L, 1982, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V77, P548
  • [4] Prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of fistula-in-ano
    Chapple, KS
    Spencer, JA
    Windsor, ACJ
    Wilson, D
    Ward, J
    Ambrose, NS
    [J]. DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2000, 43 (04) : 511 - 516
  • [5] COMPARISON BETWEEN ANAL ENDOSONOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL EXAMINATION IN THE EVALUATION OF ANAL FISTULAS
    CHOEN, S
    BURNETT, S
    BARTRAM, CI
    NICHOLLS, RJ
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1991, 78 (04) : 445 - 447
  • [6] FARMER RG, 1975, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V68, P627
  • [7] OCCURRENCE AND OUTCOME AFTER PRIMARY-TREATMENT OF ANAL FISTULAS IN CROHNS-DISEASE
    HELLERS, G
    BERGSTRAND, O
    EWERTH, S
    HOLMSTROM, B
    [J]. GUT, 1980, 21 (06) : 525 - 527
  • [8] Fistula in ano: Endoanal sonography versus endoanal MR imaging in classification
    Hussain, SM
    Stoker, J
    Schouten, WR
    Hop, WCJ
    Lameris, JS
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1996, 200 (02) : 475 - 481
  • [9] DIAGNOSIS OF FISTULAS AND SINUS TRACTS IN PATIENTS WITH CROHN DISEASE - VALUE OF MR IMAGING
    KOELBEL, G
    SCHMIEDL, U
    MAJER, MC
    WEBER, P
    JENSS, H
    KUEPER, K
    HESS, CF
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1989, 152 (05) : 999 - 1003
  • [10] FISTULOGRAPHY FOR FISTULA-IN-ANO - IS IT USEFUL
    KUIJPERS, HC
    SCHULPEN, T
    [J]. DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 1985, 28 (02) : 103 - 104