Comparative Analysis of MRI and Endoanal Ultrasound for Assessing Perianal Fistulas

Perianal fissures can profoundly affect an individual's quality of life, necessitating precise evaluation and treatment. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Endoanal Ultrasound (EAUS) are commonly employed imaging methodologies for appraising perianal fissures. This investigation aimed to juxtapose the precision of diagnosis and the clinical influence of MRI and EAUS in assessing perianal fissures. This retrospective research scrutinized medical records and imaging information from 85 patients diagnosed with perianal fissures. The imaging findings were juxtaposed with surgical observations, regarded as the definitive standard. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of each technique were ascertained through statistical analysis. Endoanal ultrasound detected 96 instances of fistulas, demonstrating an overall sensitivity rate of 84.5% and specificity rate of 36.51%. Meanwhile, MRI pinpointed 85 cases of fistulas, resulting in a sensitivity rate of 72.12% and a specificity rate of 53.69%. Notably, no statistically notable variance emerged between the two methods regarding the precision of diagnosis. MRI and EAUS significantly influenced choices surrounding clinical management, effectively steering the formulation of treatment strategies. The utilization of MRI and EAUS furnished invaluable insights for diagnosing and characterizing perianal fistulas and played an instrumental role in directing decisions about clinical management. Each of these approaches possesses distinct advantages and limitations, and the determination of which to use is contingent upon the unique patient factors and the accessibility of resources. The most effective patient care hinges on an interdisciplinary approach involving radiologists and colorectal surgeons.