Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of surgical approaches for vesicovaginal fistulae repair: the case for transvaginal repair as the gold standard

International Urogynecology Journal volume 32, pages 2429–2435 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To highlight the success rates of two approaches of transvaginal vs. transabdominal closures for the vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair and to investigate the patient, fistula, and surgical factors relevant to surgical characteristics and successful outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 66 consecutive patients who underwent VVF repair between 2005 and 2020. Fistula profile, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Primary outcome was success rate with regard to surgical approach. Secondary outcomes were to compare patients’ and surgical characteristics with regard to surgical approach and correlate these characteristics relevant to surgical outcomes.

Results

A total of 66 women with a median age of 47 (27–82) years were included. Most (93.9%) of the VVFs were secondary to gynecological procedures. Thirteen (19.7%) patients had previous VVF repair. The median time from onset of leakage to surgical repair was 120 days. Forty-nine patients underwent transvaginal repair, whereas 17 (25.7%) women had abdominal repair. The success rates of transvaginal and abdominal techniques were 98% and 82%, respectively. Transvaginal approach had a significantly shorter operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, reduced hospital stay, and lower complication rates (p < 0.005). Age and time to surgery were positively and significantly correlated with surgical time [r (p value): 0.392 (0.003), (0.0386 (0.01)] and estimated blood loss [0.388 (0.002 and 0.410 (0.001)], respectively.

Conclusion

Transvaginal repair of VVF is a technically feasible and successful approach with significantly better operative parameters and lower complications. Despite varied etiology and different surgical approach, age and time to surgery are the main factors that correlate with operative time and blood loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Wall LL. Obstetric vesicovaginal fistula as an international public-health problem. Lancet. 2006;368(9542):1201–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Miller EA, Webster GD. Current management of vesicovaginal fistulae. Curr Opin Urol. 2001;11(4):417–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Farid FN, Azhar M, Samnani SS, Allana S, Naz A, Bohar F, et al. Psychosocial experiences of women with vesicovaginal fistula: a qualitative approach. JCPSP: J Coll Phys Surg Pak. 2013;23(11):828.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Oakley SH, Brown HW, Greer JA, Richardson ML, Adelowo A, Yurteri-Kaplan L, et al. Management of vesicovaginal fistulae: a multicenter analysis from the fellows’ pelvic research network. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grewal M, Pakzad MH, Hamid R, Ockrim JL, Greenwell TJ. The medium-to long-term functional outcomes of women who have had successful anatomical closure of vesicovaginal fistulae. Urol Annals. 2019;11(3):247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stanford E, Romanzi L (2012) Vesicovaginal fistula: what is the preferred closure technique? Springer,

  7. Lee RA, Symmonds RE, Williams TJ. Current status of genitourinary fistula. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(3):313–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith G, Williams G. Vesicovaginal fistula. BJU Intl. 1999;83:564–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eilber KS, Kavaler E, Rodríguez LV, Rosenblum N, Raz S. Ten-year experience with transvaginal vesicovaginal fistula repair using tissue interposition. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1033–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Theofanides MC, Sui W, Sebesta EM, Onyeji I, Matulay JT, Chung DE. Vesicovaginal fistulas in the developed world: an analysis of disease characteristics, treatments, and complications of surgical repair using the ACS-NSQIP database. Neurourol Urodynam. 2017;36(6):1622–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 1941;2(3):281–4.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals Surg. 2004;240(2):205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Benchekroun A, El Alj H, El Sayegh H, Lachkar A, Nouini Y, Benslimane L, et al. Vesico-vaginal fistula: report of 1050 cases. Ann Urol. 2003;4:194–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goodwin WE, Scardino PT. Vesicovaginal and ureterovaginal fistulas: a summary of 25 years of experience. J Urol. 1980;123(3):370–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ockrim JL, Greenwell TJ, Foley CL, Wood DN, Shah PJR. A tertiary experience of vesico-vaginal and urethro-vaginal fistula repair: factors predicting success. BJU Intl. 2009;103(8):1122–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee D, Dillon BE, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Long-term functional outcomes following nonradiated vesicovaginal repair. J Urol. 2014;191(1):120–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo D-Y, Shen H. Transvaginal repair of apical Vesicovaginal fistula: a modified Latzko technique—outcomes at a high-volume referral center. Eur Urol. 2019;76(1):84–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hillary CJ, Osman NI, Hilton P, Chapple CR. The aetiology, treatment, and outcome of urogenital fistulae managed in well-and low-resourced countries: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2016;70(3):478–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson KC, Rovner ES Female Pelvic Surgery.

  20. Hilton P. Urogenital fistula in the UK: a personal case series managed over 25 years. BJU Intl. 2012;110(1):102–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Southern Alberta Institute of Urology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Samer Shamout, Richard Baverstock & Kevin Carlson

  2. Vesia [Alberta Bladder Centre], Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Samer Shamout, Richard Baverstock & Kevin Carlson

  3. Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Katherine Anderson

Authors
  1. Samer Shamout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Baverstock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Shamout S: Project development, Data Collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. Anderson K: Management data analysis, Manuscript writing. Baverstock R: Management data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing. Carlson K: Project development, Data collection, Manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samer Shamout.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure/Conflict of interest

• None of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

• We specifically state that “No Competing Interests are at stake and there is No Conflict of Interest” with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shamout, S., Anderson, K., Baverstock, R. et al. Evaluation of surgical approaches for vesicovaginal fistulae repair: the case for transvaginal repair as the gold standard. Int Urogynecol J 32, 2429–2435 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04869-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04869-w

Keywords

search

Navigation