Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of vesicovaginal fistula for patients with supratrigonal fistula: comparison with open transperitoneal technique.

Yang Xiong, Yunhua Tang, Fang Huang, Longfei Liu, Xiangyang Zhang
Author Information
  1. Yang Xiong: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central-South University, No.87 Xiang Ya Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  2. Yunhua Tang: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central-South University, No.87 Xiang Ya Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  3. Fang Huang: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central-South University, No.87 Xiang Ya Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  4. Longfei Liu: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central-South University, No.87 Xiang Ya Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
  5. Xiangyang Zhang: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central-South University, No.87 Xiang Ya Road, Changsha, Hunan, China. 906076873@qq.com.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We investigated the treatment outcomes of laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair (LVVFR) in patients with supratrigonal vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) in contrast with open transperitoneal vesicovaginal fistula repair (OVVFR).
METHODS: We analyzed 58 VVF repairs from June 2005 to July 2014, with 22 patients in the LVVFR group and 36 in the OVVFR group. Demographic parameters, operative variables, and perioperative outcomes were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Patients in both groups had comparable preoperative characteristics. Significantly shorter hospital stay (5.6 vs. 13.2 days, p < 0.05) and less blood loss (52 vs. 103 ml, p < 0.05) were observed in LVVFR group. Patients in the LVVFR group achieved a higher overall VVF success rate (95.5 % vs. 83.3 %, p > 0.05) and recurrent VVF success rate (90.0 % vs. 75.0 %, p > 0.05) than OVVFR group, but it was not statistically significant. Patients who underwent OVVFR experienced more postoperative symptomatic bladder spasms (8.3 % vs. 4.5 %, p > 0.05), urinary tract infections (UTIs) (5.6 % vs. 0.0 %, p > 0.05), and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) (5.6 % vs. 4.5 %, p > 0.05), but fewer incidents of postoperative ileus (0.0 % vs. 4.5 %, p > 0.05) than the LVVFR group; differences were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Judging from this initial trial, LVVFR should be recommended as the primary intervention to treat supratrigonal VVF patients in view of its reduced blood loss and hospital stay.

Keywords

References

  1. BJU Int. 2005 Jul;96(1):183-6 [PMID: 15963146]
  2. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Nov;99 Suppl 1:S10-5 [PMID: 17727854]
  3. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1994;157:101-5 [PMID: 7939439]
  4. J Urol. 1998 Dec;160(6 Pt 1):1995-9 [PMID: 9817308]
  5. J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1615-8 [PMID: 15821510]
  6. J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):1033-6 [PMID: 12576839]
  7. J Endourol. 2009 Jul;23(7):1135-7 [PMID: 19583506]
  8. Eur Urol. 2006 Mar;49(3):551-6 [PMID: 16413101]
  9. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Feb 15;8(2):2364-70 [PMID: 25932174]
  10. Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Mar;26(3):441-6 [PMID: 25027019]
  11. Curr Urol Rep. 2007 Sep;8(5):413-8 [PMID: 17880842]
  12. J Endourol. 2008 Mar;22(3):525-7 [PMID: 18355147]
  13. Urology. 2008 Jan;71(1):41-6 [PMID: 18242362]
  14. BJOG. 2008 Nov;115(12):1564-9 [PMID: 19035992]
  15. J Urol. 1999 Feb;161(2):566-8 [PMID: 9915449]
  16. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jul;18(7):759-62 [PMID: 17308863]
  17. BJOG. 2005 Jan;112(1):112-4 [PMID: 15663409]
  18. Curr Urol. 2013 Nov;7(2):75-82 [PMID: 24917763]
  19. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jun;18(6):635-9 [PMID: 17031487]
  20. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;39(4):1085-90 [PMID: 17333515]
  21. BJU Int. 1999 Mar;83(5):564-9; quiz 569-70 [PMID: 10210608]
  22. J Endourol. 2009 Mar;23(3):475-9 [PMID: 19216638]
  23. Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Mar;21(3):337-42 [PMID: 19949771]
  24. J Endourol. 2010 Nov;24(11):1779-82 [PMID: 20677989]
  25. J Urol. 1980 Mar;123(3):370-4 [PMID: 7359641]
  26. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012 Jun;44(3):775-85 [PMID: 22057590]
  27. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 Feb;20(1):13-5 [PMID: 20059325]
  28. Urology. 2001 Dec;58(6):882-6 [PMID: 11744451]
  29. Urology. 2015 Mar;85(3):544-6 [PMID: 25586477]
  30. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Feb;24(2):337-42 [PMID: 22714997]

MeSH Term

Adult
Blood Loss, Surgical
Female
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Humans
Laparoscopy
Length of Stay
Middle Aged
Peritoneal Cavity
Postoperative Complications
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Vesicovaginal Fistula

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0vs05fistulaLVVFRgroupp > 0VVFvesicovaginalpatientsOVVFRtest5 %0 %outcomesrepairsupratrigonalPatients54laparoscopicopentransperitonealanalyzedhospitalstayp < 0bloodlosssuccessrate3 %significantpostoperativeurinary6 %0INTRODUCTIONANDHYPOTHESIS:investigatedtreatmentcontrastMETHODS:58repairsJune2005July20142236Demographicparametersoperativevariablesperioperativeretrospectivelycollectedchi-squareFisher'sexactStudent'stMann-WhitneyUusedstatisticalanalysisRESULTS:groupscomparablepreoperativecharacteristicsSignificantlyshorter6132 daysless52103 mlobservedachievedhigheroverall9583recurrent9075statisticallyunderwentexperiencedsymptomaticbladderspasms8tractinfectionsUTIsstressincontinenceSUIfewerincidentsileusdifferencesCONCLUSIONS:JudginginitialtrialrecommendedprimaryinterventiontreatviewreducedTransperitonealfistula:comparisontechniqueLaparoscopyRepairSupratrigonalTreatmentVesicovaginal

Similar Articles

Cited By