Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch evaluation: clarity and effectiveness

  • Hollow Organ GI
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Given that ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery is a technically challenging and high-morbidity procedure, there are numerous pertinent imaging findings that need to be clearly and efficiently communicated to the IBD surgeons for essential patient management and surgical planning. Structured reporting has been increasingly used over the past decade throughout various radiology subspecialties to improve reporting clarity and completeness. We compare structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch to evaluate for clarity and effectiveness.

Methods

164 consecutive pelvic MRI’s for ileal pouch evaluation, excluding subsequent exams for the same patient, acquired between 1/1/2019 and 7/31/2021 at one institution were included, before and after implementation (11/15/2020) of a structured reporting template, which was created with institutional IBD surgeons. Reports were assessed for the presence of 18 key features required for complete ileal pouch assessment: anastomosis (IPAA, tip of J, pouch body), cuff (length, cuffitis), pouch body (size, pouchitis, stricture), pouch inlet/pre-pouch ileum (stricture, inflammation, sharp angulation), pouch outlet (stricture), peripouch mesentery (position, mesentery twist), pelvic abscess, peri-anal fistula, pelvic lymph nodes, and skeletal abnormalities. Subgroup analysis was performed based on reader experience and divided into three categories: experienced (n = 2), other intra-institutional (n = 20), or affiliate site (n = 6).

Results

57 (35%) structured and 107 (65%) non-structured pelvic MRI reports were reviewed. Structured reports contained 16.6 [SD:4.0] key features whereas non-structured reports contained 6.3 [SD:2.5] key features (p < .001). The largest improvement following template implementation was for reporting sharp angulation of the pouch inlet (91.2% vs. 0.9%, p < .001), tip of J suture line and pouch body anastomosis (both improved to 91.2% from 3.7%). Structured versus non-structured reports contained mean 17.7 versus 9.1 key features for experienced readers, 17.0 versus 5.9 for other intra-institutional readers, and 8.7 versus 5.3 for affiliate site readers.

Conclusion

Structured reporting of pelvic MRI guides a systematic search pattern and comprehensive evaluation of ileal pouches, and therefore facilitates surgical planning and clinical management. This standardized reporting template can serve as baseline at other institutions for adaptation based on specific radiology and surgery preferences, fostering a collaborative environment between radiology and surgery, and ultimately improving patient care.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kayal M, Plietz M, Rizvi A, et al. Inflammatory Pouch Conditions Are Common After Ileal Pouch Anal Anastomosis in Ulcerative Colitis Patients. Inflammatory bowel diseases 2020; 26:1079-1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hahnloser D, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Larson DR, Crownhart BS, Dozois RR. Results at up to 20 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. The British journal of surgery 2007; 94:333-340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Scoglio D, Ahmed Ali U, Fichera A. Surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis: ileorectal vs ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. World journal of gastroenterology 2014; 20:13211-13218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Aydinli HH, Peirce C, Aytac E, Remzi F. The usefulness of the H-pouch configuration in salvage surgery for failed ileal pouches. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2017; 19:e312-e315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sheedy SP, Bartlett DJ, Lightner AL, et al. Judging the J pouch: a pictorial review. Abdominal radiology (New York) 2019; 44:845-866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Remzi FH, Aytac E, Ashburn J, et al. Transabdominal Redo Ileal Pouch Surgery for Failed Restorative Proctocolectomy: Lessons Learned Over 500 Patients. Annals of surgery 2015; 262:675-682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nobel JM, van Geel K, Robben SGF. Structured reporting in radiology: a systematic review to explore its potential. European radiology 2022; 32:2837-2854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganeshan D, Duong PT, Probyn L, et al. Structured Reporting in Radiology. Academic radiology 2018; 25:66-73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahn CE, Jr., Langlotz CP, Burnside ES, et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 2009; 252:852-856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marcovici PA, Taylor GA. Journal Club: Structured radiology reports are more complete and more effective than unstructured reports. AJR American journal of roentgenology 2014; 203:1265-1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tuncyurek O, Garces-Descovich A, Jaramillo-Cardoso A, et al. Structured versus narrative reporting of pelvic MRI in perianal fistulizing disease: impact on clarity, completeness, and surgical planning. Abdominal radiology (New York) 2019; 44:811-820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Franconeri A, Fang J, Carney B, et al. Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning. European radiology 2018; 28:3009-3017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F, et al. Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder - improvement of report quality? European radiology 2017; 27:4110-4119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Armbruster M, Gassenmaier S, Haack M, et al. Structured reporting in petrous bone MRI examinations: impact on report completeness and quality. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 2018; 13:1971-1980

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Herts BR, Gandhi NS, Schneider E, et al. How We Do It: Creating Consistent Structure and Content in Abdominal Radiology Report Templates. AJR American journal of roentgenology 2019; 212:490-496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H. Improving communication of diagnostic radiology findings through structured reporting. Radiology 2011; 260:174-181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sistrom CL, Honeyman-Buck J. Free text versus structured format: information transfer efficiency of radiology reports. AJR American journal of roentgenology 2005; 185:804-812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hong Y, Zhang J, Heilbrun ME, Kahn CE, Jr. Analysis of RadLex coverage and term co-occurrence in radiology reporting templates. Journal of digital imaging 2012; 25:56-62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang C, Remzi FH, Dane B, et al. Reporting Templates for MRI and Water-Soluble Contrast Enema in Patients With Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: Experience From a Large Referral Center. AJR American journal of roentgenology 2021; 217:347-358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kruskal JB, Reedy A, Pascal L, Rosen MP, Boiselle PM. Quality initiatives: lean approach to improving performance and efficiency in a radiology department. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 2012; 32:573–587

  21. Levin DC. Checklists: from the cockpit to the radiology department. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR 2012; 9:388-390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kushner DC, Lucey LL. Diagnostic radiology reporting and communication: the ACR guideline. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR 2005; 2:15-21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weiss DL, Langlotz CP. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare? Radiology 2008; 249:739-747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Luke A. Ginocchio, Bari Dane, Paul N. Smereka, Alec J. Megibow & Chenchan Huang

  2. Department of Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Feza H. Remzi & Eren Esen

Authors
  1. Luke A. Ginocchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bari Dane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul N. Smereka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alec J. Megibow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Feza H. Remzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eren Esen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chenchan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke A. Ginocchio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author AM is a consultant for Bracco Inc. None of the other authors have any disclosures to report.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ginocchio, L.A., Dane, B., Smereka, P.N. et al. Structured versus non-structured reporting of pelvic MRI for ileal pouch evaluation: clarity and effectiveness. Abdom Radiol 48, 2978–2985 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-03858-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-03858-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation