The Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Recurrent Anal Fistula
Main Article Content
Abstract
SUMMARY
Objective:
To evaluate the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of recurrent anal fistula by assessing its ability to identify the primary fistulous tract and internal opening and to determine the tract’s relationship with the anal sphincter complex, compared with surgical findings, using surgical findings as the reference standard.
Methods:
A retrospective descriptive study was conducted on patients with clinically suspected recurrent anal fistula who underwent preoperative pelvic MRI followed by surgical treatment. MRI findings, including fistula classification, location of the internal opening, primary fisstulous tract and sphincter involvement, were compared with intraoperative findings. The diagnostic value of MRI was assessed based on sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and the kappa agreement coefficient between MRI findings and surgical findings.
Results:
The study included predominantly male patients (93.3%), with a mean age of 41.7 ± 15 years. Transsphincteric fistula was the most common type (78.8%). MRI detected fistulous tracts with 97% sensitivity and accuracy and showed good agreement with surgical findings in fistula classification and internal opening localization, with Kappa values of 0.717 and 0.758, respectively (p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Magnetic resonance imaging is a reliable and highly accurate imaging modality for evaluating recurrent anal fistula. MRI provides comprehensive anatomical assessment of fistulous disease, facilitates preoperative planning, and contributes to reducing postoperative recurrence while preserving anal sphincter function.
Keywords: Recurrent anal fistula; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pelvic MRI; Internal opening.
Keywords
Recurrent anal fistula, Magnetic resonance imaging, Pelvic MRI, Internal opening.
Article Details
References
doi:10.1055/s-2007-977488
2. Andreou C, Zeindler J, Oertli D, Misteli H. Longterm outcome of anal fistula – A retrospective study. Sci Rep.
2020;10:6483. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63541-3
3. Mei Z, Wang Q, Zhang Y, et al. Risk Factors for Recurrence after anal fistula surgery: A meta-analysis. Int J Surg.
2019;69:153-164. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.08.003
4. Emile SH. Recurrent anal fistulas: When, why, and how to manage? World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(9):1586-1591.
doi:10.12998/wjcc.v8.i9.1586
5. Bakhtawar N, Usman M. Factors Increasing the Risk of Recurrence in Fistula-in-ano. Cureus. 2019;11(3):e4200.
doi:10.7759/cureus.4200
6. Cảnh NT, Mi NTQ, Anh TH. ĐẶC ĐIỂM LÂM SÀNG VÀ CẬN LÂM SÀNG Ở BỆNH NHÂN RÒ HẬU MÔN TÁI PHÁT
TẠI BỆNH VIỆN ĐA KHOA TRUNG ƯƠNG CẦN THƠ. Tạp Chí Học Việt Nam. 2024;540(3):3. doi:10.51298/vmj.
v540i3.10471
7. Morris J, Spencer JA, Ambrose NS. MR imaging classification of perianal fistulas and its implications for patient
management. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2000;20(3):623-635; discussion 635-637. doi:10.1148/
radiographics.20.3.g00mc15623
8. Zhao WW, Yu J, Shu J, et al. Precise and comprehensive evaluation of perianal fistulas, classification and related
complications using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Transl Res. 2023;15(5):3674-3685.
9. Lê Quốc Phong. Nghiên cứu đặc điểm lâm sàng, cận lâm sàng và đánh giá kết quả phẫu thuật điều trị rò hậu môn
tái phát. Tạp Chí Học Lâm Sàng Bệnh Viện Trung Ương Huế. 2023;85:11-17.
10. Cảnh NT, Mi NTQ. Đánh giá kết quả điều trị rò hậu môn tái phát tại bệnh viện Đa khoa Trung ương Cần Thơ. Tạp
Chí Học Việt Nam. 2024;541(3):3. doi:10.51298/vmj.v541i3.10847
11. Emile SH, Khafagy W, Elbaz SA. Impact of number of previous surgeries on the continence state and healing after
repeat surgery for recurrent anal fistula. J Visc Surg. 2022;159(3):206-211. doi:10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2021.03.006
12. Lewis R, Lunniss PJ, Hammond TM. Novel biological strategies in the management of anal fistula. Colorectal Dis
Off J Assoc Coloproctology G B Irel. 2012;14(12):1445-1455. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03192.x
13. Khánh PP, Hùng NX, Ánh NN, et al. Kết quả phẫu thuật rò hậu môn tái phát tại Bệnh viện Hữu nghị Việt Đức. J
108 - Clin Med Phamarcy. Published online March 8, 2021. doi:10.52389/ydls.v16i2.715
14. Vũ TA, Thành ĐT, Phạm HĐ. Vai trò của cộng hưởng từ trước phẫu thuật trong chẩn đoán rò hậu môn. Tạp Chí
Nghiên Cứu Học. 2021;145(9):9. doi:10.52852/tcncyh.v145i9.383
15. Kummari S, Burra KG, Reddy VRK, et al. The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pre-operative Assessment
of Anorectal Fistula With Surgical Correlation. Cureus. 2024;16. doi:10.7759/cureus.53237
16. Emile SH. Recurrent anal fistulas: When, why, and how to manage? World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(9):1586-1591.
doi:10.12998/wjcc.v8.i9.1586
17. Hamada LAE, Dawoud MM, Abdallah HS, Hefeda MM. Recent Advances of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in
Evaluation of Recurrent Perianal Fistula. J Adv Med Med Res. Published online April 27, 2022:49-62. doi:10.9734/
jammr/2022/v34i1131364
18. Augustine A, Patel PG, Augustine A, et al. MRI of Recurrent Fistula-in-Ano: Is it Different from Treatment-Naïve
Fistula-in-Ano and How Does it Correlate with Anal Sphincter Morphology? Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2022;33(1):19-
27. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1758202
19. ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal SurgeryASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery.
20. Öz DK, Zorlu SNY, Eskalen Z, et al. Goodsall’s Rule Revisited: An MRI-Based Assessment of its Accuracy in
Perianal Fistulas. Turk J Colorectal Dis. Published online June 27, 2025. doi:10.4274/tjcd.galenos.2025.2025-1-2