Abstract
RationaleVery 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. ObjectiveTo compare the clarity and usefulness of the conventional report compared to structured magnetic resonance imaging in cases of anal fistula. Method30 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. ResultsThere 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. ConclusionThe 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
