Vesico-vaginal fistula: report of 220 cases

Hadži-Djokić, Jovan; Pejcic, T.; Acimovic, M.

doi:10.1007/s11255-008-9449-1

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our outcomes compare similarly to the 75% initial success rate reported by Ockim, et al in a series of 24 abdominal VVF repairs [7], but lower than those reported by Hadzi-Djokic (32 patients, 94% success) [8], and Rahjamaheswari (19 patients, 100%) [6]. It is challenging to compare outcomes between patient cohort's due to potentially differing demographics, definition of successful closure, and follow up.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Abdominal Approach for Vesicovaginal Fistulas: Outcomes and Risk Factors for Failure

Li¹,

Papin²,

Suskind³

et al. 2017

Int Arch Urol Complic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Abdominal Approach for Vesicovaginal Fistulas: Outcomes and Risk Factors for Failure

Li¹,

Papin²,

Suskind³

et al. 2017

Int Arch Urol Complic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abdominal approach is recommended if the ex- 27 posure is inadequate due to the lack of surgeon experience or due to a retracted fistula. Some surgeons recommended that abdominal approach should be considered for recurrent VVF or when the fistula was high and large (>3 cm) [26] . As shown in table 3 , vaginal approach was advocated regardless of primary or recurrent fistulas in our clinical center.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing Repair Outcomes of Vesicovaginal Fistula: A Retrospective Review of 139 Procedures

Zhou

Yang²,

Luo³

et al. 2016

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We aimed to report the outcomes of patients undergoing vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair to identify prognostic factors. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent VVF repair between January 2009 and October 2015 were reviewed. Primary outcome was fistula closure at 3 months. Results: A total of 123 patients and 139 procedures of VVF repair were reviewed. The overall success rate was 85.6%. There were no significant differences in age (p = 0.476), etiology (p = 0.900), fistula duration (p = 0.491) and number of repairs (p = 0.509) between success and fail group. Moderate or severe perifistula fibrosis and multiple fistula were associated with failure in repair of fistula (70.8 vs. 93.4%, p < 0.001; 62.5 vs. 88.6%, p = 0.005). No difference was seen in success rate of vaginal and abdominal approaches (86.0 vs. 85.0%, p = 0.800). Logistic regression analysis identified fistula number (p = 0.003) and perifistula fibrosis (p = 0.002) as 2 independent prognostic factors. Medium/large fistulas were 3.2 times more likely to fail in repair than small fistulas (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.95-10.6, p = 0.061). Conclusions: Fistula number and perifistula fibrosis were 2 independent prognostic factors for fistula repair. Unsuccessful closure was more likely in medium/large VVF.

show abstract

“…There are no randomised studies that compare the outcomes of transabdominal vs transvaginal approaches. Nonrandomised studies compared the outcomes of transvaginal vs transabdominal approaches for fistula repair [21,40,41]. The overall success rate for a vaginal approach was 91% vs 84% for abdominal repairs (P = 0.018).…”

Section: Outcome After Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Update on vesicovaginal fistula: A systematic review

Elazab

Abolella

Farouk

2019

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on vesicovaginal fistula (VVF), including reporting on the aetiology, in both developed and underdeveloped countries; diagnosis; intraoperative prevention; and management. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on VVF through the PubMed and the Cochrane Library according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted from 1985 to 2018 in English, using the keywords 'fistula' and 'vesicovaginal fistula'. Prospective studies were preferred; however, retrospective studies and case reports were used when no prospective studies were available. All authors' extracted relevant data related to the proposed review of VVF and carefully examined collected articles. Results: In all, 116 relevant articles were identified and 43 articles were included in this systematic review. The outcome of surgical reconstruction was >90%, but the outcome may be suboptimal in radiotherapy (RT)-induced VVFs. Absolute indications for an abdominal approach included: ureteric involvement, the need for concomitant bladder augmentation, severe vaginal stenosis, and an inability to tolerate the dorsal lithotomy position (e.g. due to muscular spasticity). Typically, it was recommended to wait at least 3 months to allow the inflammatory response to subside before definitive surgery. Early fistula repair can be performed in the absence of infection and in patients who have not received pelvic RT. Conclusion: VVF is rare in developed countries. Surgical treatment is the primary method of repair. The outcome of surgical reconstruction exceeds 90%, but the outcome may be suboptimal in RT-induced VVFs.

show abstract

Vesico-vaginal fistula: report of 220 cases

Abstract: The total recurrence rate of 6.4% did not differ significantly between various procedures. However, TVAG is less invasive and suitable for uncomplicated cases, whereas TPA should be recommended for great and recurrent VVF.

Cited by 30 publications

References 15 publications

Abdominal Approach for Vesicovaginal Fistulas: Outcomes and Risk Factors for Failure

Abdominal Approach for Vesicovaginal Fistulas: Outcomes and Risk Factors for Failure

Factors Influencing Repair Outcomes of Vesicovaginal Fistula: A Retrospective Review of 139 Procedures

Update on vesicovaginal fistula: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About