Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
I read with interest the article by Hilton [1], which sheds light on changes in the aetiology of urogenital fistulae, and states: “It has long been held as conventional wisdom that urogenital fistulae in low-income and middle-income countries are almost exclusively of obstetric aetiology, related to prolonged neglected obstructed labour, whereas those seen in high-income countries are largely iatrogenic in nature”. Then: “a growing perception amongst those working in the field that an increasing proportion of urogenital fistulae in low-income and middle-income countries may be iatrogenic, resulting from caesarean section”.
I would like to highlight that in 2013 we published a small series of urogenital fistulae from a tertiary care centre in Saudi Arabia [2]. This series showed that of the 16 cases, 12 (75 %) involved iatrogenic obstetrical surgical complications; of those, 8 (50 %) were complications of caesarean section (CS). Three cases were caused by complications relating to repeat CS, and 2 cases occurred following cervical cerclage. The remaining 4 cases (25 %) were complications following different types of hysterectomy. Our series provides some evidence that iatrogenic obstetrical surgical complications are becoming the commonest cause of urogenital fistulae in high-income countries with advanced obstetrical care, which is different from what has previously been documented.
References
Hilton P (2016) Trends in the aetiology of urogenital fistula: a case of ‘retrogressive evolution’? Int Urogynecol J 27(6):831–837
Perveen K, Al-Shaikh G, Al-Moazin M, Ross S, Al-Badr A (2013) Urogenital fistula in a Saudi Arabian referral center. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(2):261–265
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An author’s reply to this comment is available at doi:10.1007/s00192-016-3083-8.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Al-Badr, A. Trends in the aetiology of urogenital fistula: a case of “retrogressive evolution”?. Int Urogynecol J 27, 1443 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3078-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3078-5