MR Imaging Classification of Perianal Fistulas and Its Implications for Patient Management

Until recently, imaging had a limited role in the preoperative assessment of perianal fistulas. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has been shown to demonstrate accurately the anatomy of the perianal region. In addition to showing the anal sphincter mechanism, MR imaging clearly shows the relationship of fistulas to the pelvic diaphragm (levator plate) and the ischiorectal fossae. This relationship has important implications for surgical management and outcome and has been classified into five MR imaging–based grades. If the ischioanal and ischiorectal fossae are unaffected, disease is likely confined to the sphincter complex (simple intersphincteric fistulization, grade 1 or 2), and outcome following simple surgical management is favorable. Involvement of the ischioanal or ischiorectal fossa by a fistulous track or abscess indicates complex disease related to trans-sphincteric or suprasphincteric disease (grade 3 or 4). Correspondingly more complex surgery may be required that may threaten continence or may require colostomy to allow healing. If the track traverses the levator plate, a translevator fistula (grade 5) is present, and a source of pelvic sepsis should be sought.

References

  • 1 Goodsall DH, Miles WE. Diseases of the anus and rectum. London, England: Longmans, Green, 1900.
  • 2 Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD. A classification of fistula-in-ano. Br J Surg 1976; 63:1-12.
  • 3 Halligan S. Imaging fistula-in-ano. Clin Radiol 1998; 53:85-95.
  • 4 Kuijpers HC, Schulpen T. Fistulography for fistula-in-ano: is it useful? Dis Colon Rectum 1985; 28:103-104.
  • 5 Weisman RI, Orsay CP, Pearl RK, et al. The role of fistulography in fistula-in-ano: report of 5 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34:181-184.
  • 6 Choen S, Burnett S, Bartram CI, Nicholls RJ. Comparison between anal endosonography and digital examination in the evaluation of anal fistulae. Br J Surg 1991; 78:445-447.
  • 7 Guillaumin E, Jeffrey RB, Shea WJ, et al. Perirectal inflammatory disease: CT findings. Radiology 1986; 161:153-157.
  • 8 Yousem DM, Fishman EK, Jones B. Crohn disease: perirectal and perianal findings at CT. Radiology 1988; 167:331-334.
  • 9 Barker PG, Lunniss PJ, Armstrong P, Reznek RH, Cottam K, Phillips RK. Magnetic resonance imaging of fistula-in-ano: technique, interpretation, and accuracy. Clin Radiol 1994; 49:7-13.
  • 10 Spencer JA, Ward J, Beckingham IJ, Adams C, Ambrose NS. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of perianal fistulas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:735-741.
  • 11 Haggett PJ, Moore NM, Shearman JD, Travis SPL, Jewell DP, Mortensen NJ. Pelvic and perianal complications of Crohn's disease: assessment using magnetic resonance imaging. Gut 1995; 36:407-410.
  • 12 Koelbel G, Schmeidl U, Majer MC, et al. Diagnosis of fistulae and sinus tracts in patients with Crohn's disease: value of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152:999-1003.
  • 13 Myhr GE, Myrvold HE, Nilsen G, Thoresen JE, Rinck PA. Perianal fistulas: use of MR imaging for diagnosis. Radiology 1994; 191:545-549.
  • 14 Hussain SM, Stoker J, Schouten WR, Hop WCJ, Lameris JS. Fistula-in-ano: endoanal sonography versus endoanal MR imaging in classification. Radiology 1996; 200:475-481.
  • 15 Halligan S, Bartram CI. MR imaging of fistula-in-ano: are endoanal coils the gold standard? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:407-412.
  • 16 Spencer JA, Chapple K, Wilson D, Ward J, Windsor ACJ, Ambrose NS. Outcome after surgery for perianal fistula: predictive value of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:403-406.

Article History

Published in print: Mar 2000