English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The primary importance of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in evaluating anal fistulas lies in its ability to demonstrate hidden areas of sepsis and secondary extensions in patients with fistula in ano. MR imaging is relatively expensive, so there are many healthcare systems worldwide where access to MR imaging remains restricted. Until recently, computed tomography (CT) has played a limited role in imaging fistula in ano, largely owing to its poor resolution of soft tissue. In this article, the different imaging features of the CT and MRI are compared to demonstrate the relative accuracy of CT fistulography for the preoperative assessment of fistula in ano. CT fistulography and MR imaging have their own advantages for preoperative evaluation of perianal fistula, and can be applied to complement one another when necessary.

Imaging of Anal Fistulas: Comparison of Computed Tomographic Fistulography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging