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.
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.
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.
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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Wall LL. Obstetric vesicovaginal fistula as an international public-health problem. Lancet. 2006;368(9542):1201–9.
Miller EA, Webster GD. Current management of vesicovaginal fistulae. Curr Opin Urol. 2001;11(4):417–21.
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.
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.
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.
Stanford E, Romanzi L (2012) Vesicovaginal fistula: what is the preferred closure technique? Springer,
Lee RA, Symmonds RE, Williams TJ. Current status of genitourinary fistula. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(3):313–9.
Smith G, Williams G. Vesicovaginal fistula. BJU Intl. 1999;83:564–70.
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.
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.
Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 1941;2(3):281–4.
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.
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.
Goodwin WE, Scardino PT. Vesicovaginal and ureterovaginal fistulas: a summary of 25 years of experience. J Urol. 1980;123(3):370–4.
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.
Lee D, Dillon BE, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Long-term functional outcomes following nonradiated vesicovaginal repair. J Urol. 2014;191(1):120–4.
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.
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.
Johnson KC, Rovner ES Female Pelvic Surgery.
Hilton P. Urogenital fistula in the UK: a personal case series managed over 25 years. BJU Intl. 2012;110(1):102–10.
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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