Endoanal Ultrasound-Guided Surgery for Anal Fistula

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: Outcomes following surgical treatment of patients with anal fistula are related to eradication of tracts and the internal opening. In this study, the results of surgery based on endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) findings were evaluated.
Patients and Methods: A total of 102 patients with primary cryptogenetic anal fistula were prospectively examined with EAUS, using a 360-degree rotating 10-MHz probe, equipped with a three-dimensional (3-D) imaging system. Injection of hydrogen peroxide through the external opening was also used. Patients underwent operation on the basis of the EAUS findings. The agreement between findings from EAUS and from surgery was calculated. Clinical results were reported as treatment success, fistula recurrence, and fecal incontinence.
Results: Amongst 102 patients, the overall concordance between EAUS and surgical findings was 94.1 % for primary tracts, 91.2 % for internal openings, 96.1 % for secondary tracts, 100 % for abscesses, and 96.1 % for horseshoe tracts. Diagnostic accuracy was improved when hydrogen peroxide injection or 3-D imaging were used. Fistulotomy was performed in 46 patients (45.1 %), fistulectomy in 17 (16.7 %), fistulotomy plus seton placement in 19 (18.6 %), fistulectomy plus seton in 18 (17.6 %), and mucosal flap advancement in 2 (2.0 %). The operation was curative in 100 patients (98.0 %), and unsuccessful in 2 (2.0 %) due to recurrence of the fistula. Fecal continence was preserved in all patients.
Conclusions: These data highlight the diagnostic accuracy of EAUS, particularly when hydrogen peroxide injection or 3-D imaging are used. Basing our surgical decision making on EAUS findings allowed us to carry out curative operations in a significantly large number of patients; the recurrence rate was very low. The accurate EAUS assessment of the relationship between fistulas and sphincters has been the main factor in choosing a sphincter-saving surgical procedure, avoiding fecal incontinence.

References

• 1 Parks A G, Gordon P H, Hardcastle J D. A classification of fistula-in-ano.  Br J Surg. 1976;  63 1-12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Kuijpers H J, Schulpen T. Fistulography for fistula-in-ano: is it useful.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1985;  28 103-104
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Choen S, Burnett S, Bartram C I, Nicholls R J. Comparison between anal endosonography and digital examination in the evaluation of anal fistulae.  Br J Surg. 1991;  78 445-447
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Deen K I, Williams J G, Hutchinson R. et al . Fistulas in ano: endoanal ultrasonographic assessment assists decision making for surgery.  Gut. 1994;  35 391-394
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Poen A C, Felt-Bersma R JF. et al . Hydrogen peroxide-enhanced transanal ultrasound in the assessment of fistula-in-ano.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;  41 1147-1152
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Ratto C, Gentile E, Merico M. et al . How can the assessment of fistula-in-ano be improved?.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;  43 1375-1382
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Corman M L. Anorectal abscess and fistula. In: Corman ML (ed) Colon and rectal surgery. 2nd edn. Philadelphia; JB Lippincott 1993: 133-187
  Google Scholar
• 8 Weisman R I, Orsay C P, Pearl R K, Abcarian H. The role of fistulography in fistula-in-ano. Report of five cases.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;  34 181-184
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Shouler P J, Grimley R P, Keighley M R, Alexander-Williams J. Fistula-in-ano is usually simple to manage surgically.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 1986;  1 113-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Schratter-Sehn A U, Lochs H, Vogelsang H. et al . Endosonography versus computed tomography in the differential diagnosis of perianorectal complications in Crohn’s disease.  Endoscopy. 1993;  25 582-586
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Fishman E K, Wolf E J, Jones B. et al . CT evaluation of Crohn’s disease: effect on patient management.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;  148 537-540
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Yousem D M, Fishman E K, Jones B. Crohn disease: perirectal and perianal findings at CT.  Radiology. 1988;  167 331-334
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Usewils R, Dumoulin P, Vossen P. et al . CT signs of Crohn’s disease.  J Belge Radiol. 1986;  69 151-155
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Law P J, Talbot R W, Bartram C I, Northover J. Anal endosonography in the evaluation of perianal sepsis and fistula in ano.  Br J Surg. 1989;  76 752-755
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Cataldo P A, Senagore A, Luchtefeld M A. Intrarectal ultrasound in the evaluation of perirectal abscesses.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;  36 554-558
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Kuntz C, Glaser F, Buhr H J, Herfarth C. Endo-anal ultrasound. Indications and results.  Chirurg. 1994;  65 352-357
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Cheong D M, Nogueras J J, Wexner S D, Jagelman D G. Anal endosonography for recurrent anal fistulas, image enhancement with hydrogen peroxide.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;  36 1158-1160
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Iroatulam A, Nogueras J, Chen H. et al . Accuracy of endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating anal fistula.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 (Suppl) A1450
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Gustafsson U M, Kahvecioglu B, Astrom G. et al . Endoanal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of anal fistula: a comparative study.  Colorectal Dis. 2001;  3 189-197
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 West R L, Zimmerman D D, Dwarkasing S. et al . Prospective comparison of hydrogen peroxide-enhanced three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging of perianal fistulas.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;  46 1407-1415
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Lengyel A J, Hurst N G, Williams J G. Preoperative assessment of anal fistulas using endoanal ultrasound.  Colorectal Dis. 2002;  4 436-440
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Navarro-Luna A, Garcia-Domingo M I, Rius-Macias J, Marco-Molina C. Ultrasound study of anal fistulas with hydrogen peroxide enhancement.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;  47 108-114
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Buchanan G N, Bartram C I, Williams A B. et al . Value of hydrogen-peroxide enhancement of three-dimensional endoanal ultrasound in fistula-in-ano.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;  48 141-147 [Epub 2004 Oct]
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Ortiz H, DeMiguel M, Marzo J, Jimenez G. Ultrasound study of anal fistulas with hydrogen peroxide enhancement.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;  47 1423
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Kruskal J B, Kane R A, Morrin M M. Peroxide-enhanced anal endosonography: technique, image interpretation, and clinical applications.  Radiographics. 2001;  21 S173-S189
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Hancke E, Heintz A, Just M. Diagnosis of anorectal fistula using magnetic resonance tomography.  Chirurg. 1993;  64 720-724
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Barker P G, Lunniss P J, Armstrong P. et al . Magnetic resonance imaging of fistula-in-ano: technique, interpretation and accuracy.  Clin Radiol. 1994;  49 7-13
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Lunniss P J, Barker P G, Sultan A H. et al . Magnetic resonance imaging of fistula-in-ano.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;  37 708-118
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Hussain S M, Stoker J, Schouten W R. et al . Fistula in ano: endoanal sonography versus endoanal MR imaging in classification.  Radiology. 1996;  200 475-481
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Beckingham I J, Spencer J A, Ward J. et al . Prospective evaluation of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of fistula in ano.  Br J Surg. 1996;  83 1396-1398
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Grandjean J P, Daville O, Henry L. et al . Magnetic resonance study of complex anal fistulae. Preliminary results apropos of 28 cases.  Ann Chir. 1997;  51 314-317
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Scholefield J H, Berry D P, Armitage N C, Wastie M L. Magnetic resonance imaging in the management of fistula in ano.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;  12 276-279
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Halligan S, Healy J C, Bartram C I. Magnetic resonance imaging of fistula-in-ano: STIR or SPIR?.  Br J Radiol. 1998;  71 141-145
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 deSouza N M, Gilderdale D J, Coutts G A. et al . MRI of fistula-in-ano: a comparison of endoanal coil with external phased array coil techniques.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;  22 357-363
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Halligan S, Bartram C I. MR imaging of fistula in ano: are endoanal coils the gold standard?.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;  171 407-412
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Cho D Y. Endosonographic criteria for an internal opening of fistula-in-ano.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;  42 515-518
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Sudol-Szopinska I, Jakubowski W, Szczepkowski M. Contrast-enhanced endosonography for the diagnosis of anal and anovaginal fistulas.  J Clin Ultrasound. 2002;  30 145-150
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Lindsey I, Humphreys M M, George B D, Mortensen N J. The role of anal ultrasound in the management of anal fistulas.  Colorectal Dis. 2002;  4 118-122
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Moscowitz I, Baig M K, Nogueras J J. et al . Accuracy of hydrogen peroxide enhanced endoanal ultrasonography in assessment of the internal opening of an anal fistula complex.  Tech Coloproctol. 2003;  7 133-137
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Onaca N, Hirshberg A, Adar R. Early reoperation for perirectal ascess. A preventable complication.  Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;  44 1469-1473
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

C. Ratto, M. D.

Department of Surgical Sciences, Catholic University

Largo A. Gemelli 8 · 00168 Rome · Italy

Fax: +39-06-6693413

Email: carloratto@tiscali.it