Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 387–394 | Cite as

Risk factors for obstetric fistula: a clinical review

  • Pierre Marie TebeuEmail author
  • Joseph Nelson Fomulu
  • Sinan Khaddaj
  • Luc de Bernis
  • Thérèse Delvaux
  • Charles Henry Rochat
Open Access
Review Article

Abstract

Obstetric fistula is the presence of a hole between a woman’s genital tract and either the urinary or the intestinal tract. Better knowledge of the risk factors for obstetric fistula could help in preventing its occurrence. The purpose of this study was to assess the characteristics of obstetric fistula patients. We conducted a search of the literature to identify all relevant articles published during the period from 1987–2008. Among the 19 selected studies, 15 were reports from sub-Saharan Africa and 4 from the Middle East. Among the reported fistula cases, 79.4% to 100% were obstetrical while the remaining cases were from other causes. Rectovaginal fistulae accounted for 1% to 8%, vesicovaginal fistulae for 79% to 100% of cases, and combined vesicovaginal and rectovaginal fistulae were reported in 1% to 23% of cases. Teenagers accounted for 8.9% to 86% of the obstetrical fistulae patients at the time of treatment. Thirty-one to 67% of these women were primiparas. Among the obstetric fistula patients, 57.6% to 94.8% of women labor at home and are secondarily transferred to health facilities. Nine to 84% percent of these women delivered at home. Many of the fistula patients were shorter than 150 cm tall (40–79.4%). The mean duration of labor among the fistula patients ranged from 2.5 to 4 days. Twenty to 95.7% of patients labored for more than 24 h. Operative delivery was eventually performed in 11% to 60% of cases. Obstetric fistula was associated with several risk factors, and they appear to be preventable. This knowledge should be used in strengthening the preventive strategy both at the health facility and at the community level.

Keywords

Risk factors Obstetric Vesicovaginal fistula Rectovaginal fistula 

Introduction

Definition and pathophysiology

Obstetric fistula is the presence of a hole between a woman’s genital tract and urinary tract (i.e., vesicovaginal fistula) or between the genital tract and the intestines (i.e., rectovaginal fistula). The vesicovaginal fistula is characterized by the leakage of the urine through the vagina, and rectovaginal fistula is characterized by the leakage of flatus and stool through the vagina. Both vesicovaginal and rectovaginal fistula are associated with a persistent offensive odor leading to the social stigma and ostracization of these affected women [1, 2]. There are three prominent causes of obstetric fistula. The cause of obstetric fistula is ischemia of the soft tissue between the vagina and the urinary tract or between the vagina and the rectum by compression of the fetal head. The second most common cause of obstetric fistula is the direct tearing of the same soft tissue during precipitous delivery or obstetric maneuvers. The last and least common cause is elective abortion [3, 4]. These causes are not mutually exclusive and may have additive effects. Each of these causes occurs as a complication of delivery or uterine evacuation usually in the absence of skilled medical staff assistance.

Incidence and prevalence

Obstetric fistula is found in all developing countries including South Africa. However, the majority of obstetric fistulae are confined to the “fistula belt” across the northern half of sub-Saharan Africa from Mauritania to Eritrea and in the developing countries of the Middle East Asia.

Several population-based estimates of obstetric fistula have been presented in the obstetrical literature. The most frequently cited estimate is the one introduced by Waaldijk in 1993 when he cited an incidence rate of 1 to 2 per 1,000 deliveries. This incidence rate suggested a worldwide incidence of 50,000 to 100,000 new cases annually; and a worldwide prevalence of 2 million cases of obstetric fistulae [5]. A recent study highlighted the lack of a scientific basis for this incidence and prevalence of fistulae [6]. These authors reported an estimated prevalence of 188 per 100,000 women aged 15 to 49 years in South Saharan Africa and emphasized the need for population-based studies.

Risk factors

Seven primary risk factors for obstetrical fistula commonly reported include the place of birth and presence of a skilled birth attendant, the duration of labor and the use of a partograph, the lack of prenatal care, early marriage and young age at delivery, older age, lack of family planning, and a number of other poorly defined additional factors[3, 4]. Obstetrical fistula is most often the result of prolonged and obstructed labor. Up to 95.5% of 259 cases of obstetrical fistulae reported in Zambia occurred following labor for more than 24 h before the completion of delivery [7]. Ninety-two percent of 201 fistula cases reported in northern Ethiopian women did not have any antenatal care [8]. Eighty-five percent of the 52 fistula patients in a Niger series delivered at home [9].

These underlying characteristics were not found in other low prevalence series [7, 10]. Only 20.0% of 52 cases of fistula reported in Saudia Arabia had a duration of labor lasting for more than 24 h [10]. In Zambia, only 2.5% of 259 patients reported no antenatal care before delivery [7]. Delivery at home was reported by only 9.6% of the 259 patients in the same report [7].

The data on risk factors for obstetrical fistula are controversial. Better knowledge of the risk factors for obstetrical fistula is needed to educate the community, healthcare providers, policy makers, and program managers to improve prevention of obstetric fistula at a regional and national level.

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to assess the current state of knowledge regarding the characteristics of obstetric fistula patients. To do so, we compile the international literature on obstetric fistula to identify the relevant information on the demographic, socioeconomic status of the patients, and circumstance of occurrence of the disease.

Methods

Data sources

We conducted a search of the literature to identify all relevant articles published during the period of 1987–2008 in the Medline (PubMed, Ovid), Cochrane Trials Register, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health databases. We conducted a variety of searches using a combination of the following medical terms and MeSH headings: obstetric fistula, urinary fistula, vesicovaginal fistula, vesico vaginal fistula, vesico-vaginal fistula, recto-vaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, and recto vaginal fistula. In addition, potentially relevant publications were identified from the reference lists of identified articles and from review articles. No attempt was made to identify unpublished studies.

Study selection

Descriptive or analytic studies presenting the characteristics or the outcome of women suffering from genital fistula were initially eligible for inclusion. Data regarding the place of birth, presence of a skilled birth attendant, the duration of labor, mode of delivery, the presence of antenatal care, the age at marriage, the age at first delivery, age at causal delivery, parity at causal delivery, use of family planning, and other additional factors were reviewed. After identification of potentially relevant studies, each of these studies was reviewed in detail, and additional exclusion criteria were applied.

Studies providing complete or partial information on the sociodemographic characteristics of obstetrical fistula patients, access to health care or its consequences were included. Studies were excluded if they reported only the outcome without any presenting sociodemographic characteristics or information about access to emergency health care. Studies were excluded from this analysis if they did not include information on the central tendency or the age of the affected women, proportion of obstetrical causes of fistula, or information about the site(s) of fistulae. Articles were also excluded if they included fewer than 20 cases or if they only reported on selected cases.

Data extraction and analysis

From these articles we extracted the following variables for the review: country of the study, study design, age of the patients, place of causal birth, skilled birth attendance; the duration of labor, mode of delivery, the presence of antenatal care; age at marriage, age at causative delivery, parity at the occurrence of the fistula, and a number of little defined additional factors.

Results

We found 28 studies that presented some information about the characteristics and outcomes of fistula patients. Four studies were excluded because they reported only 1 to 20 cases [11, 12, 13, 14]. Three studies were excluded because it was not possible to determine which fistula cases were obstetrical [15, 16, 17].Two studies were excluded because of the selective status of the included cases [18, 19]. Nineteen studies were chosen for analysis in this review. Tables 1 and 2 show the characteristics of the studies selected [4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. Among the 19 selected studies, 15 were from sub-Saharan Africa and 4 were from the Middle East (Table 1). Seventeen studies were retrospective case series, and two were surveys (Table 1, 2). Among the selected studies, there were two reports of only rectovaginal fistulae (RVpur); three studies reported only cases of vesicovaginal fistulae (VVpur); nine studies reported on subjects with both vesicovaginal and associated rectovaginal fistulae in the same patient (VVc), and five reports included pure vesicovaginal cases, pure rectovaginal cases, and associated cases(V/R; Table 1). Among the fistula cases, 79.4% to 100% were obstetrical while the remaining cases were from other causes (Table 2). Rectovaginal fistula represented 1% to 8% of cases; vesicovaginal fistula made up 79% to 100% of cases, and combined vesico and rectovaginal fistula represented 1% to 23% of cases (Table 2). Illiteracy among the obstetrical fistula patients ranged from 19% to 96% (Table 3).
Table 1

Classification of the selected studies. Studies selected for analysis of obstetrical fistula patients characteristics (Part 1)

Area of study

Author

Journal

Publication year

Study

design

Year of

study

Type

Total fistula

Total OF

South Australia

Rieger et al. [20]

ANZJOG

2004

Retrospecti

1999–2001

RVpur

89

89 (100%)

Saudi Arabia

Rahman et al. [10]

JOG

2003

Retrospect

1986–2001

RVpur

52

52 (100%)

Niger

Nafiou et al. [21]

Int J G O

2007

Retrospect

2003–2005

VVpur

104

104 (100%)

Niger

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

Retrospect

2005–2006

VVpur

58

58 (100%)

Nigeria

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

Retrospect

1989–1998

VVpur

34

34 (100%)

Nigeria

Melah et. al [4]

J OG

2007

Survey

2001–2003

VVc

80

75/80 (93.7)

Pakistan

Ahmad et. al [24]

Int J G O

2005

Retrospect

1978–2003

VVc

1086

1,086 (100%)

Nigeria

Waaldijk [5, 25]

Am J O G

2004

Retrospect

1992–2001

VVc

1716

1,716 (100%)

Nigeria

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

Retrospect

1992–1999

VVc

932

899/932 (95.5)

Mali

Qi Li Ya et al. [27]

Med Afr N

2000

Retrospect

1998–1999

VVc

34

27/34 (79.4)

Nigeria

Hilton and Ward [28]

IUGJPFLD

1998

Retrospect

1989–1995

VVc

2389

(2,202/2,389) 92%

Niger

Arrowsmith [29]

J Urol

1994

Retrospect

1990–1993

VVc

98

93/98 (94.9)

Senegal

Gueye et al. [30]

Med Afr N

1992

Retrospect

1986–1992

VVc

123

118/123 (95.9)

Burki, Tchad; Gabon

Falandry [31]

Press Med

1992

Retrospect

1979–1990

VVc

230

213/230 (93%)

Zambia

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

Retrospect

2003–2005

V/R

259

259 (100%)

Malawi

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

Retrospect

1997–2005

V/R

407

379/407 (93.1)

Pakistan

Jokhio and Kelly [33]

Int J G O

2006

Retrospect

1999–2005

V/R

116

116 (100%)

Ethiop

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

Retrospect

1993–2001

V/R

193

184/193 (95.3)

Niger

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

Survey

NP

V/R

52

52 (100.0%)

IUGJPFLD Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, Retrospect retrospective case series study, RVpur Pur rectovaginal fistulas, VVpur pure vesicovaginal fistula, VVc vesicovaginal fistula including associated rectovaginal fistula in the same patient, V/R studies including pure vesicovaginal cases, pure rectovaginal cases and associated cases, OF obstetric fistula

Table 2

Organ related classification of obstetrical fistula included in selected studies

Author

Journal

Year of publication

Type

Total OF

RVF

VVF

Combined VVF/RVF

Rieger et al. [20]

ANZJOG

2004

RVpur

89 (100%)

89 (100%)

0

0

Rahman et al. [10]

JOG

2003

RVpur

52 (100%)

52 (100%)

0

0

Nafiou et al. [21]

Int J G O

2007

VVpur

104 (100%)

0

104 (100%)

0

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

VVpur

58 (100%)

0

58 (100%)

0

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

VVpur

34 (100%)

0

34 (100%)

0

Melah et. al [4]

J OG

2007

VVc

75/80 (93.7)

0

72/80 (90.0)

8/80 (10%)

Ahmad et. al [24]

Int J G O

2005

VVc

1,086 (100%)

0

950/1,025 (92.7)

75/1,025 (1.5)

Waaldijk [5, 25]

Am J O G

2004

VVc

1,716 (100%)

0

1,505 (87.7)

211 (12.3)

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

VVc

899/932 (95.5)

0

800/899 (88.9)

99 (11%)

Qi Li Ya et al. [27]

Med Afr N

2000

VVc

27/34 (79.4)

0

327/34 (79.4%)

7/34 (2.1)

Hilton and Ward [28]

IU J PFD

1998

VVc

(2,202/2,389) 92%

0

2,385/2,484 (96.0)

99/2,484 (4.0%)

Arrowsmith [29]

J Urol

1994

VVc

93/98 (94.9)

0

86/98 (92.5)

7/98 (7.5)

Gueye et al. [30]

Med Afr N

1992

VVc

118/123 (95.9)

0

119/123 (96.7)

4/123 (3.2)

Falandry [31]

Press Med

1992

VVc

213/230 (93%)

0

178/230 (77.4)

52/230 (22.6)

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

V/R

259 (100%)

4/297 (1.3)

247/297 (83.2)

18/247 (7.3)

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

V/R

379/407 (93.1)

12/408 (2.9)

396/408 (97.5)

29/408 (7.1)

Jokhio and Kelly [33]

Int J G O

2006

V/R

116 (100%)

3/116 (2.69)

103/116 (88.8%)

5 (4.3)

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

V/R

184/193 (95.3)

9/193 (4.7)

166/193 (86%)

16/193 (8.3)

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

V/R

52 (100.0%)

4/52 (7.7)

45/52 (86.5%)

3/52 (5.8)

Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct

Among the fistula cases, 79.4% to 100% were related to the obstetric conditions, while the remaining cases estimated as less than 20% were from other causes (Table 2). Among the overall fistula cases, rectovaginal fistula represents 1% to 8%; vesicovaginal, 79% to 100% of cases and combined vesico and rectovaginal fistula, 1% to 23% of cases (Table 2)

Table 3

Risk factors of obstetrical fistula and illiteracy status of the patients (Part 2)

Author

Journal

Year

Illiteracy

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

49/58(84.5%)

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

32/34(94.1%)

Melah et. al [4]

J OG

2007

77/80(96.3)

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

700/898(77.9)

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

42/213(19.7)

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

154/407(37.8)

Jokhio and Kelly [33]

Int J G O

2006

105/116(90.5)

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

156/193(80.8)%

Illiteracy among the obstetrical fistula patients ranged from 19% to 96% (Table 3)

At the time of management, 8.9% to 86% of patients were teenagers (Table 4). Thirty-one to 66.7% of patients were primiparous at the time of the incident delivery resulting in fistula (Table 5).
Table 4

Teenage status of the patients

Author

Journal

Year

<20 years at management

Nafiou et al. [21]

Int J G O

2007

13/52 (25%)

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

9/34( 26.5)

Ahmad et. al [24]

Int J G O

2005

26/1,025 (2.5%)a

Waaldijk [5, 25]

Am J O G

2004

728/1,716 (42.4%)a

Qi Li Ya et al. [27]

Med Afr N

2000

6/34 (17.6%)b

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

134/407 (32.9)

Jokhio and Kelly [33]

Int J G O

2006

10/112 (8.9)

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

74/184 (40.3)

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

45/52 (86.5)

Teenage condition found in a wide range in obstetrical fistula patients ranging from 8.9% to 86% of patients at the moment of management (Table 4)

aPresent age <16 years old

bPresent age <21 years old

Table 5

Parity of the patients

Author

Journal

Year

First parity at operation

First parity at occurrence

Rieger et al. [20]

ANZJOG

2004

34/51 (66.7)

34/51 (66.7%)

Rahman et al. [10]

JOG

2003

28 (80.0%)

Nafiou et al. [21]

Int J G O

2007

48/111 (43.2)

57/111 (51.3)

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

26/58 (26.0)

26/58 (44.9)

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

17 (50.0%)

Melah et. al [4]

J OG

2007

75/80 (94.0)

Ahmad et. al [24]

Int J G O

2005

143/1,025 (13.9)

Waaldijk [5, 25]

Am J O G

2004

937/1,716 (54.6)

937/1,716 (54.6)

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

412/889 (46.3)

Qi Li Ya et al. [27]

Med Afr N

2000

16/34 (47.1)

Hilton and Ward [28]

IUJPFD

1998

190/605 (31.4)

190/605 (31.4%)

Arrowsmith [29]

J Urol

1994

Gueye et al. [30]

Med Afr N

1992

57/123 (46.3%)

Falandry [31]

Press Med

1992

162 (70%)

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

117/239 (49.0)

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

100/379 (49.6)

 

Jokhio and Kelly [33]

Int J G O

2006

44/112 (39.3)

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

87 (47.3%)

 

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

35/52 (67.3)

The patient at the moment of the occurrence of fistula was primiparous in 31% to 66.7% of patients (Table 5)

Among the obstetric fistula patients, 57.6% to 94.8% of women tried to deliver at home and were secondarily transferred to the health facility. However, 9% to 84% of the patients delivered at home (Table 6). Many obstetrical fistula patients (40–79.4%) were less than 150 cm tall (Table 7).
Table 6

Antenatal care and place of delivery

Author

Journal

Year of publication

ANC None

Home/TH attempt

Delivery at home/on the way

Delivery at the hospital

Rieger et al. [20]

ANZJOG

2004

Rahman et al. [10]

JOG

2003

Nafiou et al. [21]

Int J G O

2007

45/111 (40.5)

66 (59.5)

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

55/58 (94.8)

53/58 (91.4)

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

31/34 (91.1)

Melah et. al [4]

J OG

2007

72/80 (90.0%)

61/80 (76.3)

Ahmad et. al [24]

Int J G O

2005

 

Waaldijk [5, 25]

Am J O G

2004

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

647/889 (72.0%)

Qi Li Ya et al. [27]

Med Afr N

2000

214/34 (41.2)

20/34 (58.8)

Hilton and Ward [28]

IUJPFD

1998

552/605 (91.2%)

442/605 (73.1)

Arrowsmith [29]

J Urol

1994

 

(14/93) 15%

79/93 (85.0)

Gueye et al. [30]

Med Afr N

1992

Falandry [31]

Press Med

1992

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

6/239 (2.5)

23/239 (9.6)

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

Jokhio and Kelly [33]

Int J G O

2006

92/112 (81.8)

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

169/184 (92%)

106/184 (57.6%)

78/184 (42.4)

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

40/52 (77.0%)

44/52 (84.5)

8/52 (15.4)

Among the obstetrical fistula patients, 57.6% to 94.8% of patients try to labor at home and are secondarily transferred to a health facility, while 9% to 84% of the patients delivered at home (Table 6)

Table 7

Height of the patients

Author

Journal

Year of

publication

Height,

<150 cm

Height

(mean)

BMI

median

Melah et. al [4]

J OG

2007

40.0%

146.2

 

Ahmad et. al [24]

Int J G O

2005

 

145

 

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

79.4%

  

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

148a

21.2

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

 

155a

 

Many patients among the obstetric fistula patients have less than 150 cm of height (40–79.4%; Table 7)

aMedian height

The mean duration of labor among the fistula patients ranged from 2.5 to 4 days. Twenty to 95.7% of patients labored for more than 24 h. Operative delivery was performed in 11% to 60% of fistula cases (Table 8). The indexed delivery resulted in stillbirth for 78% to 96% of patients [7, 8, 22, 26, 28, 29, 32] (Table 9).
Table 8

Duration of labor and mode of delivery

Author

Journal

Year of publication

Labor, mean (days)

Labor > = 24 h

Instrumental

Operative

delivery

CS

Rieger et al. [20]

ANZJOG

2004

24/51 (47.0%)

Rahman et al. [10]

JOG

2003

 

7/35 (20.0)

Nafiou et al. [21]

Int J G O

2007

3a

103/111 (93.0)

23/111 (20.2)

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

2.61

21/58 (36.2%)

13/58 (22.4%)

Ijaiya and Aboyeji [23]

WAJM

2004

 

28/34 (82.4)

1/34 (2.9%)

4/34 (11.8%)

2/34 (5.9%)

Melah et al. [4]

J OG

2007

3.6

75/80 (93.7)

Ahmad et al. [24]

Int J G O

2005

790/1,086 (72.5)

202/1,086 (18.6)

79/1,086 (7.3)

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

272/898 (30.2)

452/898 (50.5)

363/898 (40.4)

Qi Li Ya et al. [27]

Med Afr N

2000

34 (100.0)

6/34 (17.6)

 

4/34 (11.8)

Hilton and Ward [28]

IUJPFD

1998

2.5

(1,918/2,389) 80.3%

(36/605) 6.0

(224/605) 37.0

(206/605) 34.0%

Arrowsmith [29]

J Urol

1994

2.52

(88/93) 94.9

(9/93) 10%

(35/93) 38%

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

223/233 (95.7)

144/239 (60.3)

119/239 (50.2)

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

34/379 (9.0)

209/379 (55.1)

138/379 (36.4)

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

3.6

52/184 (28.3%)

19/184 (10.3%)

Harouna et al. [9]

Med Afr N

2001

4.0

    

The mean duration of labor among the fistula patients ranged from 2.5 to 4 days. Twenty to 95.7% of the patients have been in labor for more than 24 h. Operative delivery was performed for 11% to 60% of cases on index delivery (Table 8)

aMedian duration of labor

Table 9

Stillbirth status of the patients

 

Author

Journal

Year of publication

Stillbirth

Niger

Arrowsmith [29]

J Urol

1994

89/93 (96%)

Nigeria

Wall et al. [26]

Am J O G

2004

824/898 (91.7%)

Niger

Meyer et al. [22]

Am J O G

2007

53/58 (91.4%)

Nigeria

Hilton and Ward [28]

IUJPFD

1998

543/605 (89.7%)

Ethiopia

Gessessew and Mesfin [8]

Eth M J

2003

167/193 (86.6%)

Malawi

Rijken and Chilopora [32]

Int J G O

2007

305/379 (80.5)

Zambia

Holme et al. [7]

Br J O G

2007

185/239 (78.1%)

The index delivery resulted in stillbirth for 78% to 96% of the patients (Table 9)

Discussion

We found that 8.9% to 86% of obstetrical fistula patients are teenagers at the time of management (Table 4), and 31% to 66.7% were primiparous at the moment of occurrence. (Table 5). Previous studies found a higher rate of obstetrical complications in teenagers; Unfer et al. reported a higher rate of cesarean section in teenagers compared to women in their twenties. Unfer et al. also reported a higher incidence of low birth weight infants and acute intrapartum distress in adolescent mothers [34]. The increased obstetrical risk in teenagers can partially be explained by anatomic immaturity. Teenage pregnancies account for a higher proportion of all pregnancies (7–30%) in developing countries [35, 36]. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce obstetrical fistula should target teenagers.

We found that 57.6% to 94.8% of obstetrical fistula patients tried to labor at home but were later transferred to health facilities and 9% to 84% of the patients delivered at home (Table 6).

The WHO recommends that labor should be monitored with a partograph (an instrument on which the labor events are recorded) and interpreted for decision making during labor and delivery. This is impossible if women choose to labor at home [37, 38]. When women try to labor at home unsuccessfully, they are more likely to come to the hospital at a late stage. This may be further delayed by the absence of transportation, poor roads, heavy rains, and great distances to the health facility. In many developing countries, patients have to use their own money to pay for health care, and this may further delay treatment.

The mean duration of labor in fistula patients ranged from 2.5 to 4 days. Twenty to 95.7% of these women had labored for more than 24 h, and operative delivery was performed in 11% to 60% of the indexed deliveries leading to fistula formation (Table 8). Cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) was the most common indication for cesarean delivery in sub-Saharan Africa [39, 40, 41]. Previous studies have found CPD as the primary indication in 30%, 33%, and 34% of cesarean deliveries in Senegal, Cameroon, and Namibia, respectively.

Delay in intervention increases the time of compression of the mother’s soft pelvic organs (i.e., bladder and rectum) between the fetal presentating part (i.e., the fetal head) and the mother’s pelvic bones, leading to uterine rupture, obstetric fistula, and fetal death. These observations suggest that emergency obstetrical care should be a cornerstone of any obstetrical fistula prevention program. We found that more than 78% of fistula patients did not have a live baby. Our findings strongly emphasize on the association between obstetric fistula (OF) and stillbirth. This suggests that the OF patients will not suffer only from their physical condition but will also suffer from psychological setbacks due to the loss of the pregnancy [7, 8, 22, 26, 28, 29, 32].

Conclusion

Obstetric fistula is associated with several risk factors, and they appear to be preventable. This disease is associated with teenage status at delivery, primiparity, prolonged labor, home delivery, and short status at delivery. Knowledge of the leading risk factors for obstetrical fistula in a given population is of paramount importance and should be studied. This knowledge should be used in strengthening preventive strategies both at the health facility and at the community level.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Ms. Mamma Danna for her secretarial assistance and the personnel of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Regional Hospital Maroua for their interest on the assessment of the day practice

Conflicts of interest

None.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    Bangser M (2006) Obstetric fistula and stigma. Lancet 367(9509):535–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook RJ, Dickens BM, Syed S (2004) Obstetric fistula: the challenge to human rights. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 87(1):72–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tebeu PM, de Bernis L, Doh AS, Rochat CH, Delvaux T (2009) Risk factors for obstetric fistula in the Far North Province of Cameroon. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 107(1):12–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melah GS, Massa AA, Yahaya UR, Bukar M, Kizaya DD, El Nafaty AU (2007) Risk factors for obstetric fistulae in north-eastern Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol 27(8):819–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waaldijk K (1994) The immediate surgical management of fresh obstetric fistulas with catheter and/or early closure. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 45(1):11–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stanton C, Holtz SA, Ahmed S (2007) Challenges in measuring obstetric fistula. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(Suppl 1):S4–S9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holme A, Breen M, MacArthur C (2007) Obstetric fistulae: a study of women managed at the Monze Mission Hospital, Zambia. BJOG 114(8):1010–1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gessessew A, Mesfin M (2003) Genitourinary and rectovaginal fistulae in Adigrat Zonal Hospital, Tigray, north Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J 41(2):123–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harouna YD, Seidou A, Maikano S, Djabeidou J, Sangare A, Bilane SS et al (2001) La fistule vesico-vaginale de cause obstetricale:enquete aupres de 52 femmes admises au village des fistuleuses. Med Afr N 48(2):55–59Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahman MS, Al Suleiman SA, El Yahia AR, Rahman J (2003) Surgical treatment of rectovaginal fistula of obstetric origin: a review of 15 years’ experience in a teaching hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 23(6):607–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sefrioui O, Aboulfalah A, Taarji HB, Matar N, el Mansouri A (2001) [Current profile of obstetrical vesicovaginal fistulas at the maternity unit of the University of Casablanca]. Ann Urol (Paris) 35(5):276–279Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sefrioui O, Benabbes TH, Azyez M, Aboulfalah A, el Karroumi M, Matar N et al (2002) [Vesico-uterine fistula of obstetrical origin. Report of 3 cases]. Ann Urol (Paris) 36(6):376–380Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chew SS, Rieger NA (2004) Transperineal repair of obstetric-related anovaginal fistula. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 44(1):68–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hosseini SY, Roshan YM, Safarinejad MR (1998) Ureterovaginal fistula after vaginal delivery. J Urol 160(3 Pt 1):829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramsey K, Iliyasu Z, Idoko L (2007) Fistula Fortnight: innovative partnership brings mass treatment and public awareness towards ending obstetric fistula. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(Suppl 1):S130–S136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Danso KA, Opare-Addo HS, Turpin CA (2007) Obstetric fistula admissions at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi, Ghana. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(Suppl 1):S69–S70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muleta M (2004) Socio-demographic profile and obstetric experience of fistula patients managed at the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital. Ethiop Med J 42(1):9–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Browning A (2007) The circumferential obstetric fistula: characteristics, management and outcomes. BJOG 114(9):1172–1176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Husain A, Johnson K, Glowacki CA, Osias J, Wheeless CR Jr, Asrat K et al (2005) Surgical management of complex obstetric fistula in Eritrea. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 14(9):839–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rieger N, Perera S, Stephens J, Coates D, Po D (2004) Anal sphincter function and integrity after primary repair of third-degree tear: uncontrolled prospective analysis. ANZ J Surg 74(3):122–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nafiou I, Idrissa A, Ghaichatou AK, Roenneburg ML, Wheeless CR, Genadry RR (2007) Obstetric vesico-vaginal fistulas at the National Hospital of Niamey, Niger. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(Suppl 1):S71–S74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyer L, Ascher-Walsh CJ, Norman R, Idrissa A, Herbert H, Kimso O et al (2007) Commonalities among women who experienced vesicovaginal fistulae as a result of obstetric trauma in Niger: results from a survey given at the National Hospital Fistula Center, Niamey, Niger. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(1):90–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ijaiya MA, Aboyeji PA (2004) Obstetric urogenital fistula: the Ilorin experience, Nigeria. West Afr J Med 23(1):7–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahmad S, Nishtar A, Hafeez GA, Khan Z (2005) Management of vesico-vaginal fistulas in women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 88(1):71–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waaldijk K (2004) The immediate management of fresh obstetric fistulas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(3):795–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wall LL, Karshima JA, Kirschner C, Arrowsmith SD (2004) The obstetric vesicovaginal fistula: characteristics of 899 patients from Jos, Nigeria. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(4):1011–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ya QL, Ouattara Z, Ouottara K (2000) Traitement des fistules vesico-vaginales a l,hopital de Kati, apropos de 34 cas. Med Afr N 47(3):167–169Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hilton P, Ward A (1998) Epidemiological and surgical aspects of urogenital fistulae: a review of 25 years’ experience in southeast Nigeria. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 9(4):189–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arrowsmith SD (1994) Genitourinary reconstruction in obstetric fistulas. J Urol 152(2 Pt 1):403–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gueye SM, Diagne BA, Mensah A (2008) Les fistules vesico-vaginales, aspects etio-pathogeniques et therapeutiques au Senegal. Med Afr N 39(8/9):559–563Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Falandry L (1992) Vesicovaginal fistula in Africa. 230 cases. Presse Med 21(6):241–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rijken Y, Chilopora GC (2007) Urogenital and recto-vaginal fistulas in southern Malawi: a report on 407 patients. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 99(Suppl 1):S85–S89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jokhio AH, Kelly J (2006) Obstetric fistulas in rural Pakistan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 95(3):288–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Unfer V, Piazze GJ, Di Benedetto MR, Costabile L, Gallo G, Anceschi MM (1995) Pregnancy in adolescents. A case–control study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 22(2):161–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chang SC, O’Brien KO, Nathanson MS, Mancini J, Witter FR (2003) Characteristics and risk factors for adverse birth outcomes in pregnant black adolescents. J Pediatr 143(2):250–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tebeu PM, Tantchou J, Obama Abena MT, Mevoula OD, Leke RJ (2006) [Delivery outcome of adolescents in Far North Cameroon]. Rev Med Liege 61(2):124–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beazley JM, Kurjak A (1972) Influence of a partograph on the active management of labour. Lancet 2(7773):348–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    WHO (1994) World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet 343(8910):1399–1404Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cisse CT, Faye EO, de Bernis L, Dujardin B, Diadhiou F (1998) Cesarean sections in Senegal: coverage of needs and quality of services. Sante 8(5):369–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Dillen J, Stekelenburg J, Schutte J, Walraven G, van Roosmalen J (2007) The use of audit to identify maternal mortality in different settings: is it just a difference between the rich and the poor? Healthc Q 10(4):133–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tebeu PM, Ngassa P, Mboudou E, Kongnyuy E, Binam F, Abena MT (2008) Neonatal survival following cesarean delivery in northern Cameroon. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 103(3):259–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Marie Tebeu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
    Email author
  • Joseph Nelson Fomulu
    • 3
  • Sinan Khaddaj
    • 4
  • Luc de Bernis
    • 5
  • Thérèse Delvaux
    • 7
  • Charles Henry Rochat
    • 8
  1. 1.Ligue d’Initiative et de Recherche Active pour la Santé et l’Education de la Femme (LIRASEF)YaoundéCameroon
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyRegional HospitalMarouaCameroon
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity HospitalsYaoundéCameroon
  4. 4.Women Alliance and health International(WAHA)ParisFrance
  5. 5.United Nations Population Fund, Technical DivisionNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity Centre HospitalYaoundéCameroon
  7. 7.Institute of Tropical MedicineAntwerpBelgium
  8. 8.Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER)VersoixSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations