Comparison between conventional and structured magnetic resonance imaging reports in perianal fistula

• Autor(a) principal: Barbosa,Paula Carolinada Silveira Pozzi
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Camilo,Denise Maria Rissato, Nunes,Thiago Franchi, Santos,Carlos Henrique Marques dos, Nakamura,Diogo Iengo
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632020000100031
• topic: Rectal fistula; Magnetic resonance imaging; Diagnosis; Radiology; Therapeutics

Abstract Rationale Very often magnetic resonance imaging is used in the study of complex anal fistulae, but conventional reports may contribute little to what really matters to the coloproctologist. Objective To compare the clarity and usefulness of the conventional report compared to structured magnetic resonance imaging in cases of anal fistula. Method 30 magnetic resonance exams already performed with an evaluation of anal fistula were again evaluated without the radiologist having access to the old report and a new structured report was prepared. Five proctologists evaluated the 30 conventional and 30 structured reports and answered questionnaires with eight questions comparing their practical aspects. The results were tabulated and submitted to statistical treatment considering a significant p < 0.05. Results There was a statistically significant difference in favor of the structured report in the questions “clearly defines whether it is an active fistula or fibrosis”, “clearly states whether the tract is single or multiple”, “whether the patient has anal fistula or not”. The other questions did not present differences between the groups. Conclusion The structured magnetic resonance report presented clearer information and was better evaluated in relation to the conventional one in the analysis of proctologists in the study of anal fistulae.