Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2023; 33(01): 019-027
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758202
Original Article

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

Antony Augustine 
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Prerak Govindbhai Patel
2   Department of Colorectal Surgery, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Ann Augustine
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Reetu John
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Betty Simon
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Anu Eapen
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Rohin Mittal
2   Department of Colorectal Surgery, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Anuradha Chandramohan 
1   Department of Radiology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
› Author Affiliations Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives 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.

Methods 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 (n = 103) and treatment-naïve (n = 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.

Results 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 (p = 0.005). Among patients with recurrent fistula-in-ano, MRI detected anal sphincter defect/scarring was seen in 53.4% (n = 55) and was significantly associated with posterior fistula-in-ano (p = 0.031), collections and/or supralevator extension (p = 0.010), and secondary tracts (p = 0.015).

Conclusion 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.

Key Points

  • 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.

Keywords

fistula-in-ano - MRI - recurrent - anal sphincter - incontinence

Authors' Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Antony Augustine, Prerak Govindbhai Patel, and Ann Augustine contributed to material preparation, data collection and analysis. Antony Augustine and Anuradha Chandramohan wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


Ethical Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.


Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee or IRB of Christian Medical College, Vellore (Date: 22.7.2020/No. = 13193).


Informed Consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
24 November 2022

© 2022. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 de Miguel Criado J, del Salto LG, Rivas PF. et al. MR imaging evaluation of perianal fistulas: spectrum of imaging features. Radiographics 2012; 32 (01) 175-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Emile SH. Recurrent anal fistulas: when, why, and how to manage?. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8 (09) 1586-1591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD. A classification of fistula-in-ano. Br J Surg 1976; 63 (01) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Morris J, Spencer JA, Ambrose NS. MR imaging classification of perianal fistulas and its implications for patient management. Radiographics 2000; 20 (03) 623-635 , discussion 635–637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Whiteford MH, Kilkenny III J, Hyman N. et al; Standards Practice Task Force, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for the treatment of perianal abscess and fistula-in-ano (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48 (07) 1337-1342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Abbas MA, Jackson CH, Haigh PI. Predictors of outcome for anal fistula surgery. Arch Surg 2011; 146 (09) 1011-1016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Parks AG, Stitz RW. The treatment of high fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 1976; 19 (06) 487-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Li J, Yang W, Huang Z. et al. [Clinical characteristics and risk factors for recurrence of anal fistula patients]. [Article in Chinese].. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 2016; 19 (12) 1370-1374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Garcia-Aguilar J, Belmonte C, Wong WD, Goldberg SM, Madoff RD. Anal fistula surgery. Factors associated with recurrence and incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1996; 39 (07) 723-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dudukgian H, Abcarian H. Why do we have so much trouble treating anal fistula?. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17 (28) 3292-3296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ommer A, Wenger FA, Rolfs T, Walz MK. Continence disorders after anal surgery–a relevant problem?. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23 (11) 1023-1031
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lunniss PJ, Barker PG, Sultan AH. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37 (07) 708-718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Buchanan G, Halligan S, Williams A. et al. Effect of MRI on clinical outcome of recurrent fistula-in-ano. Lancet 2002; 360 (9346): 1661-1662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dobben AC, Felt-Bersma RJ, ten Kate FJ, Stoker J. Cross-sectional imaging of the anal sphincter in fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (03) 671-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Terra MP, Beets-Tan RG, van Der Hulst VP. et al. Anal sphincter defects in patients with fecal incontinence: endoanal versus external phased-array MR imaging. Radiology 2005; 236 (03) 886-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Terra MP, Beets-Tan RGH, van der Hulst VPM. et al. MRI in evaluating atrophy of the external anal sphincter in patients with fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187 (04) 991-999
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Malouf AJ, Buchanan GN, Carapeti EA. et al. A prospective audit of fistula-in-ano at St. Mark's hospital. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4 (01) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jayarajah U, Wickramasinghe DP, Samarasekera DN. Anal incontinence and quality of life following operative treatment of simple cryptoglandular fistula-in-ano: a prospective study. BMC Res Notes 2017; 10 (01) 572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bokhari S, Lindsey I. Incontinence following sphincter division for treatment of anal fistula. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12 (7 Online): e135-e139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Owen HA, Buchanan GN, Schizas A, Cohen R, Williams AB. Quality of life with anal fistula. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016; 98 (05) 334-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Visscher AP, Schuur D, Roos R, Van der Mijnsbrugge GJ, Meijerink WJ, Felt-Bersma RJ. Long-term follow-up after surgery for simple and complex cryptoglandular fistulas: fecal incontinence and impact on quality of life. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58 (05) 533-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ritchie RD, Sackier JM, Hodde JP. Incontinence rates after cutting seton treatment for anal fistula. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11 (06) 564-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dwarkasing RS, Schouten WR, Geeraedts TE, Mitalas LE, Hop WC, Krestin GP. Chronic anal and perianal pain resolved with MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (05) 1034-1041
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Parks AG. Pathogenesis and treatment of fistula-in-ano. BMJ 1961; 1 (5224): 463-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sainio P. Fistula-in-ano in a defined population. Incidence and epidemiological aspects. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1984; 73 (04) 219-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar