Skip to main content
Log in

Transperineal ultrasonography as a complementary diagnostic tool in identifying acute perianal sepsis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Successful anal fistula care in complex cases can be assisted by specialized imaging which accurately defines the site of the internal fistula opening and the fistula type. There are currently limited data concerning the clinical indications for and accuracy of transperineal ultrasound (TP-US) in acute perianal sepsis. The aims of this study were to compare the anatomical interpretation of TP-US images with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical findings in an unselected patient cohort presenting with acute perianal sepsis.

Methods

Sixty-seven consecutive patients with acute anorectal sepsis referred from the surgical department were examined using TP-US and Gadolinium-enhanced MRI with both examiners blinded to the surgical results. Fistulae were categorized by the Parks’ classification of fistula type.

Results

Thirty-six abscesses were detected by MRI, 38 by TP-US and 30 by surgical examination. Operatively discordant cases showed only ischiorectal panniculitis. TP-US was more accurate in the diagnosis of superficial sepsis and MRI in the diagnosis of deep-seated perirectal infection. TP-US and MRI show concordance with operative findings in fistula diagnosis with a tendency for TP-US to overdiagnose trans-sphincteric fistulae and MRI to over diagnose extra-sphincteric fistulae. Comparison of TP-US with MRI showed good agreement for perianal abscess diagnosis (τ = 0.82) and for fistula diagnosis (τ = 0.68). For fistulae, TP-US showed moderate agreement with surgery (τ = 0.43) with only fair agreement between MRI and surgery (τ = 0.29).

Conclusions

Transperineal ultrasound complements other imaging modalities in the anatomical diagnosis of acute perianal abscesses and fistulae. It has specific advantages over other techniques and is accurate in the detection of superficially located perirectal sepsis showing concordance with MRI and surgical findings.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sangwan YP, Rosen L, Riether RD, Stasik JJ, Sheets JA, Khubchandani IT (1994) Is simple fistula-in-ano simple? Dis Colon Rectum 37:885–889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Malley RB, Al-Hawary MM, Kaza RK, Wasnik AP, Liu PS, Hussain HK (2012) Rectal imaging: part 2, perianal fistula evaluation on pelvic MRI–what the radiologist needs to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W43–W53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Garcia-Aguilar J, Belmonte C, Wong WD, Goldberg SM, Madoff RD (1996) Anal fistula surgery. Factors associated with recurrence and incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 39:723–729

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P (2007) Perianal Crohn’s disease: classification and clinical evaluation. Dig Liver Dis 39:959–962

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Strong SA (2007) Perianal Crohn’s disease. Semin Pediatr Surg 16:185–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chapple KS, Spencer JA, Windsor AC, Wilson D, Ward J, Ambrose NS (2000) Prognostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 43:511–516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Toyonaga T, Tanaka Y, Song JF et al (2008) Comparison of accuracy of physical examination and endoanal ultrasonography for preoperative assessment in patients with acute and chronic anal fistula. Tech Coloproctol 12:217–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fields S, Rosainz L, Korelitz BI, Panagopoulos G, Schneider J (2008) Rectal strictures in Crohn’s disease and coexisting perirectal complications. Inflamm Bowel Dis 14:29–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim Y, Park YJ (2009) Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonographic assessment of an anal fistula with and without H(2)O(2) enhancement. World J Gastroenterol 15:4810–4815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart LK, McGee J, Wilson SR (2001) Transperineal and transvaginal sonography of perianal inflammatory disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:627–632

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonatti H, Lugger P, Hechenleitner P et al (2004) Transperineal sonography in anorectal disorders. Ultraschall Med 25:111–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wedemeyer J, Kirchhoff T, Manns MP, Gebel MJ, Bleck JS (2004) Transcutaneous perianal ultrasound (PAUS) for the imaging of fistulas and abscesses in Crohn’s disease. Z Gastroenterol 42:1315–1320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zbar AP, Oyetunji RO, Gill R (2006) Transperineal versus hydrogen peroxide-enhanced endoanal ultrasonography in never operated and recurrent cryptogenic fistula-in-ano: a pilot study. Tech Coloproctol 10:297–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Domkundwar SV, Shinagare AB (2007) Role of transcutaneous perianal ultrasonography in evaluation of fistulas in ano. J Ultrasound Med 26:29–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maconi G, Ardizzone S, Greco S, Radice E, Bezzio C, Bianchi Porro G (2007) Transperineal ultrasound in the detection of perianal and rectovaginal fistulae in Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2214–2219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morris J, Spencer JA, Ambrose NS (2000) MR imaging classification of perianal fistulas and its implications for patient management. Radiographics 20:623–637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD (1976) A classification of fistula-in-ano. Br J Surg 63:1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cho DY (1999) Endosonographic criteria for an internal opening of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum 42:515–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Altman DG (1991) Statistics in medical journals: developments in the 1980s. Stat Med 10:1897–1913

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grouven U, Bender R, Ziegler A, Lange S (2007) The kappa coefficient. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 132(Suppl 1):e65–e68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zbar AP, de Souza NM, Puni R, Kmiot WA (1998) Comparison of endoanal magnetic resonance imaging with surgical findings in perirectal sepsis. Br J Surg 85:111–114

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berman L, Israel GM, McCarthy SM, Weinreb JC, Longo WE (2007) Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in anorectal disease. World J Gastroenterol 13:3153–3158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chew SS, Yang JL, Newstead GL, Douglas PR (2003) Anal fistula: levovist-enhanced endoanal ultrasound: a pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 46:377–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dietrich CF, Barreiros AP, Nuernberg D, Schreiber-Dietrich DG, Ignee A (2008) Perianal ultrasound. Z Gastroenterol 46:625–630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Berger T, Garrido F, Green J, Lema PC, Gupta J (2012) Bedside ultrasound performed by novices for the detection of abscess in ED patients with soft tissue infections. Am J Emerg Med 30:1569–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Plaikner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plaikner, M., Loizides, A., Peer, S. et al. Transperineal ultrasonography as a complementary diagnostic tool in identifying acute perianal sepsis. Tech Coloproctol 18, 165–171 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1031-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1031-x

Keywords

Navigation