How can the assessment of fistula-in-ano be improved?

PURPOSE. Fistula-in-ano anatomy and its relationship with anal sphincters are important factors influencing the results of surgical management. Preoperative definition of fistulous track(s) and the internal opening play a primary role in minimizing iatrogenic damage to the sphincters and recurrence of the fistula. METHODS. Physical examination and endoanal ultrasound (performed with a 10 MHz endoprobe), either conventionally or with an injection of hydrogen peroxide, were performed in 26 consecutive patients. Results were matched with surgical features to establish their accuracy in preoperative fistula-in-ano assessment. RESULTS. Accuracy rates of clinical examination endoanal ultrasound, and hydrogen peroxide-enhanced ultrasound were 65.4, 50, and 76.9 percent for primary tracks, 73.1, 65.4, and 88.5 percent for secondary tracks, and 80.8, 80.8, and 92.3 percent for horseshoe extensions, respectively. Compared with physical examination and endoanal ultrasound, accuracy of hydrogen peroxide-enhanced ultrasound was higher for transsphincteric and intersphincteric primary tracks and horseshoe extensions. Both endoanal ultrasound and hydrogen peroxide-enhanced ultrasound displayed a significantly higher accuracy in detecting the internal openings (53.8 and 53.8 percent, respectively) compared with clinical evaluation (23.1 percent;P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS. Our data suggest that hydrogen peroxide-enhanced ultrasound can be very reliable and useful in the definition of fistula anatomy, its relationship with anal sphincters, and, hence, surgical strategy. It also improves identification of secondary extensions, particularly horseshoe tracks. This method, besides being safe, economic and reputable, both preoperatively and postoperatively, could be helpful in checking operative results and recurrence.Presented at The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' 100^th Anniversary and Tripartite Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1 to 6, 1999.     

How to better systematize the diagnosis of neuropathy?

Two attitudes can be proposed, one consisting of making a diagnosis of neuropathy, the other seeking to grade the stage that it has reached in order to give a prognosis and above all determine the right way in which to educate the patient. In order to do this, it is important for the diagnosis to be thorough. It should be based both on listening to what the patient has to say and examining him/her. It is vital to listen to the patient because the warning signs are discreet, yet very evocative, and they will be a great help in making a positive diagnosis. They should not be confused with signs of arterial damage. They should then be interpreted by means of clinical examination and the tools that are available, i.e. essentially monitoring the osteo-tendinous reflexes and sensory signs. The sensory signs can only be studied with high-quality instruments, i.e. either a monofilament of proven technical quality and that should be used with care in line with good clinical practice recommendations, or by using a graduated tuning fork, or a neuroesthesiometer which will make it possible to obtained graduated responses, not simply binary responses of the "yes/no" variety. A whole series of scores have been put forward combining both functional and physical signs, making it possible to try to quantify the stage reached and the extent of the neuropathy. It is only by using a thorough and regularly applied routine that we can progress to establishing a better prognosis and providing a better educational service for the patient.