Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 811–820 | Cite as

Structured versus narrative reporting of pelvic MRI in perianal fistulizing disease: impact on clarity, completeness, and surgical planning

  • Ozum Tuncyurek
  • Alejandro Garces-DescovichEmail author
  • Adrian Jaramillo-Cardoso
  • Elena Esteban Durán
  • Thomas E. Cataldo
  • Vitaliy Y. Poylin
  • Said Fettane Gómez
  • Atenea Morcillo Cabrera
  • Tarek Hegazi
  • Kevin Beker
  • Koenraad J. Mortele
Pelvis

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate clarity, completeness, and impact on surgical planning of MRI reporting of perianal fistulizing disease using a structured disease-specific template versus narrative reporting for planning of disease treatment by colorectal surgeons.

Materials and methods

In this HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study with waiver of informed consent, a structured reporting template for perianal fistulizing disease MRIs was developed based on collaboration between colorectal surgeons and abdominal radiologists. The study population included 45 consecutive patients who underwent pelvic MRI for perianal fistulizing disease prior to implementation of structured reporting, and 60 consecutive patients who underwent pelvic MRI for perianal fistulizing disease after implementation of structured reporting. Objective evaluation of the reports for the presence of 12 key features was performed, as also subjective evaluation regarding the clarity and completeness of reports, and impact on surgical planning.

Results

Significantly more key features were absent in narrative reports [mean: 6.3 ± 1.8 (range 3–11)] than in structured reports [mean: 0.3 ± 0.9 (range 1–5)] (p ≤ 0.001). The use of structured reporting also increased the percentage of completeness (72.5–88.3% for surgeon 1, and 61.2–81.3% for surgeon 2; p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively), helpfulness in surgical planning (7.1 ± 1.5–7.6 ± 1.5 for surgeon 1, and 5.8 ± 1.4–7.1 ± 1.1 for surgeon 2; p = 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively), and clarity (7.6 ± 1.3–8.3 ± 1.1 for surgeon 1, and 5.2 ± 1.4–7.1 ± 1.3 for surgeon 2; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively) of the reports.

Conclusion

Structured MRI reports in patients with perianal fistulizing disease miss fewer key features than narrative reports. Moreover, structured reports were described as more complete and clear, and more helpful for treatment planning.

Keywords

Structured reporting Conventional reporting Perianal fistulizing disease Magnetic resonance imaging Fistula treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    Bink A, Benner J, Reinhardt J, et al. Structured reporting in neuroradiology: Intracranial tumors. Front Neurol 2018; 32:1–10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ganeshan D, Duong PAT, Probyn L, et al. Structured reporting in radiology. Acad Radiol 2018; 25:66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Miguel Criado J, del Salto LG, Rivas PF, et al. MR imaging evaluation of perianal fistulas: spectrum of imaging features. Radiographics 2012; 32:175–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abcarian H, Anal fistula principles and management, 1st ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2014:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamadani A, Haigh PI, Liu IA, Abbas MA. Who is at risk for developing chronic anal fistula or recurrent anal sepsis after initial perianal abscess? Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Malley RB, Al-Hawary MM, Kaza RK, Wasnik AP, Liu PS, Hussain HK. Rectal imaging: part 2, perianal fistula evaluation on pelvic MRI - what the radiologist needs to know. AJR 2012; 199:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gecse K, Khanna R, Stoker J, et al. Fistulizing crohn’s disease: diagnosis and management. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2013; 1:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beaugerie L, Carrat F, Nahon S, et al. High risk of anal and rectal cancer in patients with anal and/or perianal Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16:892–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Protyniak B, Shutt T, Farmer R. Squamous cell carcinoma originating from a Crohn's enterocutaneous fistula. Case Rep Surg 2017; 2017:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ong EM, Ghazi LJ, Schwartz DA, Mortelé KJ. Guidelines for imaging of Crohn's perianal fistulizing disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2015; 21:731–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sahni VA, Ahmad R, Burling D. Which method is best for imaging of perianal fistula? Abdom Imaging 2008; 33:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim MJ. Transrectal ultrasonography of anorectal diseases: advantages and disadvantages. Ultrasonography 2015; 34:19-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burdan F, Sudol-Szopinska I, Staroslawska E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and endorectal ultrasound for diagnosis of rectal lesions. Eur J Med Res 2015; 20:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma G, Khandige G, Mohan M. Magnetic resonance imaging in perianal fistulas-a pictorial atlas. Indian J Gastroenterol 2016; 35:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD. A classification of fistula‐in‐ano. Br J Surg 1976; 63:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Assche G, Vanbeckevoort D, Bielen D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the effects of infliximab on perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2003: 98:332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tutein Nolthenius CJ, Bipat S, Mearadji B, et al. MRI characteristics of proctitis in Crohn’s disease on perianal MRI. Abdom Radiol 2016; 41:1918–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, Kent TS, Sanchez N, Pedrosa I. Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 2015; 274:464–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nörenberg D, Sommer WH, Thasler W, et al. Structured reporting of rectal magnetic resonance imaging in suspected primary rectal cancer: potential benefits for surgical planning and interdisciplinary communication. Invest Radiol 2017; 52:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Franconeri A, Fang J, Carney B, et al. Structured vs narrative reporting of pelvic MRI for fibroids: clarity and impact on treatment planning. Eur Radiol 2017; 28:3009–3017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gassenmaier S, Armbruster M, Haasters F, et al. Structured reporting of MRI of the shoulder – improvement of report quality? Eur Radiol 2017; 27:4110–4119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zimmerman SL, Kim W, Boonn WW. Informatics in radiology: automated structured reporting o imaging findings using at AIM standard and XML. Radiographics 2011; 31:881–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brady AP. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights Imaging 2017; 8:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Abdominal Imaging/Department of RadiologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Colorectal Surgery/Department of SurgeryBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations