Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26002129›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2015

High resolution MRI for preoperative work-up of neonates with an anorectal malformation: a direct comparison with distal pressure colostography/fistulography.

Maarten G Thomeer, Annick Devos, Maarten Lequin, Nanko De Graaf, Conny J H M Meeussen, Morteza Meradji, Ivo De Blaauw, Cornelius E J Sloots

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Anorectal malformations.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maarten G ThomeerDepartment of Radiology, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 's Gravendijkwal 230, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.thomeer@erasmusmc.nl.
Annick DevosDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten LequinDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nanko De GraafDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Conny J H M MeeussenDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Morteza MeradjiDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ivo De BlaauwDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Cornelius E J SlootsDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare MRI and colostography/fistulography in neonates with anorectal malformations (ARM), using surgery as reference standard.

methodsThirty-three neonates (22 boys) with ARM were included. All patients underwent both preoperative high-resolution MRI (without sedation or contrast instillation) and colostography/fistulography. The Krickenbeck classification was used to classify anorectal malformations, and the level of the rectal ending in relation to the levator muscle was evaluated.

resultsSubjects included nine patients with a bulbar recto-urethral fistula, six with a prostatic recto-urethral fistula, five with a vestibular fistula, five with a cloacal malformation, four without fistula, one with a H-type fistula, one with anal stenosis, one with a rectoperineal fistula and one with a bladderneck fistula. MRI and colostography/fistulography predicted anatomy in 88 % (29/33) and 61 % (20/33) of cases, respectively (p = 0.012). The distal end of the rectal pouch was correctly predicted in 88 % (29/33) and 67 % (22/33) of cases, respectively (p = 0.065). The length of the common channel in cloacal malformation was predicted with MRI in all (100 %, 5/5) and in 80 % of cases (4/5) with colostography/fistulography. Two bowel perforations occurred during colostography/fistulography.

conclusionsMRI provides the most accurate evaluation of ARM and should be considered a serious alternative to colostography/fistulography during preoperative work-up. KEY POINTS: • High-resolution MRI is feasible without the use of sedation or anaesthesia. • MRI is more accurate than colostography/fistulography in visualising the type of ARM. • MRI is as reliable as colostography/fistulography in predicting the level of the rectal pouch. • Colostography/fistulography can be complicated by bowel perforation.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPreoperative CareAnal CanalAnorectal MalformationsAnus, ImperforateFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleRadiographyRectumReproducibility of ResultsAnorectal malformationColostographyFistulographyMRINeonates

Identifiers

PMID26002129
PMCPMC4636514
OpenAlexW2179374691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.