OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
PloS one
2017;12 (2): e0171554.

Management of vesicovaginal fistulas (VVFs) in women following benign gynaecologic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Barbara Bodner-Adler, Engelbert Hanzal, Eleonore Pablik, Heinz Koelbl, Klaus Bodner
Author Information
  1. Barbara Bodner-Adler: Department of General Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
  2. Engelbert Hanzal: Department of General Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
  3. Eleonore Pablik: Section for Medical Statistics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
  4. Heinz Koelbl: Department of General Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
  5. Klaus Bodner: Department of General Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
PMID: 28225769 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171554

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vesicovaginal fistulas (VVF) are the most commonly acquired fistulas of the urinary tract, but we lack a standardized algorithm for their management. Surgery is the most commonly preferred approach to treat women with primary VVF following benign gynaecologic surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of operative techniques or conservative treatment for patients with postsurgical VVF. Our secondary objective was to define the surgical time and determine the types of study designs.
METHODS: PubMed, Old Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were used as data sources. This systematic review was modelled on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, including a registration number (CRD42012002097).
RESULTS: We reviewed 282 full text articles to identify 124 studies for inclusion. In all, 1379/1430 (96.4%) patients were treated surgically. Overall, the transvaginal approach was performed in the majority of patients (39%), followed by a transabdominal/transvesical route (36%), a laparoscopic/robotic approach (15%) and a combined transabdominal-transvaginal approach in 3% of cases. Success rate of conservative treatment was 92.86% (95%CI: 79.54-99.89), 97.98% in surgical cases (95% CI: 96.13-99.29) and 91.63% (95% CI: 87.68-97.03) in patients with prolonged catheter drainage followed by surgery. 79/124 studies (63.7%) provided information for the length of follow-up, but showed a poor reporting standard regarding prognosis. Complications were studied only selectively. Due to the inconsistency of these data it was impossible to analyse them collectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the literature is imprecise and inconsistent, existing studies indicate that operation, mainly through a transvaginal approach, is the most commonly preferred treatment strategy in females with postsurgical VVF. Our data showed no clear odds-on favorite regarding disease management as well as surgical approach and current evidence on the surgical management of VVF does not allow any accurate estimation of success and complication rates. Standardisation of the terminology is required so that VVF can be managed with a proper surgical treatment algorithm based on characteristics of the fistula.

References

  1. Obstet Gynecol. 1969 Jun;33(6):852-5 [PMID: 5770561]
  2. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015 Sep;65(9):954-9 [PMID: 26338740]
  3. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004 Nov-Dec;15(6):394-8; discussion 398 [PMID: 15549257]
  4. Urol Int. 2015;95(3):357-60 [PMID: 26413889]
  5. S Afr Med J. 1983 Jun 4;63(23):889-90 [PMID: 6857408]
  6. Urology. 1977 May;9(5):543-5 [PMID: 871046]
  7. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2010;2010:760348 [PMID: 20169055]
  8. Curr Opin Urol. 2001 Jul;11(4):417-21 [PMID: 11429504]
  9. Urology. 2013 Sep;82(3):707-12 [PMID: 23830081]
  10. J Endourol. 2005 Jul-Aug;19(6):603-7 [PMID: 16053345]
  11. J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2125-9 [PMID: 23276515]
  12. J Endourol. 2010 Oct;24(10):1659-60 [PMID: 20629560]
  13. Urology. 2006 May;67(5):970-3 [PMID: 16698357]
  14. BJU Int. 2005 Jul;96(1):183-6 [PMID: 15963146]
  15. Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Mar;26(3):441-6 [PMID: 25027019]
  16. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Apr;73(1):35-9 [PMID: 11336719]
  17. Urology. 1974 Jul;4(1):109-11 [PMID: 21322999]
  18. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Nov;105(11):1216-8 [PMID: 9853775]
  19. Int Urol Nephrol. 1998;30(4):445-50 [PMID: 9821047]
  20. Arab J Urol. 2014 Jun;12(2):97-105 [PMID: 26019933]
  21. Int Neurourol J. 2010 Apr;14(1):65-8 [PMID: 21120179]
  22. J Urol. 1979 Nov;122(5):604-6 [PMID: 387983]
  23. Int J Urol. 2005 Dec;12(12):1037-40 [PMID: 16409606]
  24. J Endourol. 2008 Jun;22(6):1279-83 [PMID: 18484884]
  25. Urology. 2007 Oct;70(4):797-8 [PMID: 17991563]
  26. BJU Int. 2004 Mar;93(4):581-3 [PMID: 15008734]
  27. Urol Int. 2009;82(1):116-8 [PMID: 19172110]
  28. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Feb;24(2):337-42 [PMID: 22714997]
  29. J Urol. 1997 Oct;158(4):1513-6 [PMID: 9302154]
  30. J Urol. 1991 Sep;146(3):761-5 [PMID: 1875489]
  31. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Jun 15;131(4):425-31 [PMID: 665751]
  32. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Mar;18(3):329-33 [PMID: 17036168]
  33. BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647 [PMID: 25555855]
  34. J Gynecol Surg. 1995 Summer;11(2):95-8 [PMID: 10172378]
  35. J Endourol. 2006 Apr;20(4):240-3; discussion 243 [PMID: 16646648]
  36. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Nov;19(11):1577-9 [PMID: 18414764]
  37. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Jul;292(1):121-5 [PMID: 25534159]
  38. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30 [PMID: 21603045]
  39. J Int Coll Surg. 1956 Dec;26(6):718-24 [PMID: 13376935]
  40. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):7-13 [PMID: 24368481]
  41. J Endourol. 2014 Mar;28(3):275-9 [PMID: 24083812]
  42. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(1):57-63 [PMID: 17610037]
  43. South Med J. 1975 Nov;68(11):1410-3 [PMID: 1188431]
  44. J Urol. 1998 Sep;160(3 Pt 1):728-30 [PMID: 9720532]
  45. Eur Urol. 2006 Mar;49(3):551-6 [PMID: 16413101]
  46. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1950 Oct;60(4):834-42 [PMID: 14771179]
  47. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011 Nov;30(8):1530-2 [PMID: 21717500]
  48. J Urol. 1948 Sep;60(3):488-92 [PMID: 18880474]
  49. Urology. 1974 Mar;3(3):333-6 [PMID: 4819695]
  50. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006 Jun;93(3):252-3 [PMID: 16626715]
  51. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Jan;24(1):173-4 [PMID: 22143451]
  52. Br J Urol. 1987 Jun;59(6):516-8 [PMID: 3690179]
  53. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jan;18(1):113-5 [PMID: 16628372]
  54. J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):981-5 [PMID: 18639266]
  55. Int Braz J Urol. 2014 Nov-Dec;40(6):810-5 [PMID: 25615249]
  56. J Endourol. 2004 Jun;18(5):487-90 [PMID: 15253828]
  57. J Urol. 1950 May;63(5):865-71 [PMID: 15422693]
  58. Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Aug;22(8):981-4 [PMID: 21437724]
  59. Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Apr;23(4):411-6 [PMID: 21887547]
  60. Acta Med Acad Sci Hung. 1959;14:133-9 [PMID: 13836370]
  61. J Urol. 2009 Mar;181(3):1184-8 [PMID: 19152944]
  62. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012 Nov;22(9):871-5 [PMID: 23078658]
  63. Urology. 1979 Mar;13(3):273-5 [PMID: 442344]
  64. Trans Pac Coast Obstet Gynecol Soc. 1968;36:57-60 [PMID: 5735331]
  65. J Minim Access Surg. 2014 Oct;10(4):180-4 [PMID: 25336817]
  66. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61(2):143-8 [PMID: 7113689]
  67. J Urol. 1993 Jul;150(1):56-9 [PMID: 8510275]
  68. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jul-Aug;22(5):727-36 [PMID: 25764976]
  69. J Endourol. 2008 Mar;22(3):525-7 [PMID: 18355147]
  70. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jun;18(6):635-9 [PMID: 17031487]
  71. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1980 Jan;150(1):57-60 [PMID: 7350703]
  72. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;26(5):415-23 [PMID: 25105561]
  73. Urology. 2008 Jun;71(6):1119-23 [PMID: 18342931]
  74. J Endourol. 2001 Oct;15(8):801-3 [PMID: 11724118]
  75. Trop Doct. 2005 Jan;35(1):40-1 [PMID: 15712547]
  76. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Feb 15;8(2):2364-70 [PMID: 25932174]
  77. Adv Biomed Res. 2012;1:77 [PMID: 23326807]
  78. Asian J Surg. 2007 Oct;30(4):267-71 [PMID: 17962130]
  79. Obstet Gynecol. 1957 May;9(5):538-41 [PMID: 13431103]
  80. Urology. 2014 Oct;84(4):950-4 [PMID: 25150182]
  81. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1994;157:101-5 [PMID: 7939439]
  82. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jul;18(7):759-62 [PMID: 17308863]
  83. JSLS. 2007 Jul-Sep;11(3):378-80 [PMID: 17931523]
  84. Am J Surg. 1973 Jun;125(6):763-6 [PMID: 4710202]
  85. Invest Urol. 1967 Jan;4(4):346-50 [PMID: 6016881]
  86. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992 Dec;175(6):501-6 [PMID: 1448730]
  87. J Urol. 1999 Feb;161(2):566-8 [PMID: 9915449]
  88. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1993;253(3):127-30 [PMID: 8250599]
  89. Singapore Med J. 1997 Nov;38(11):475-8 [PMID: 9550908]
  90. Urology. 1998 Jul;52(1):123-6 [PMID: 9671883]
  91. Urology. 2007 Sep;70(3):581-2 [PMID: 17905121]
  92. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015 Jul;41(7):1049-55 [PMID: 25773925]
  93. Urol Int. 2006;76(4):374-6 [PMID: 16679845]
  94. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(4):282-7 [PMID: 11569660]
  95. J Endourol. 2010 Nov;24(11):1779-82 [PMID: 20677989]
  96. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2004 Feb;14(1):17-21 [PMID: 15035839]
  97. J Urol. 1993 Feb;149(2):229-36 [PMID: 8426392]
  98. Br J Urol. 1973 Feb;45(1):34-8 [PMID: 4690148]
  99. Arch Surg. 1960 Apr;80:628-33 [PMID: 14438295]
  100. Int J Urol. 2006 Apr;13(4):345-9 [PMID: 16734848]
  101. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2013 Jan-Mar;11(1):119-21 [PMID: 23579756]
  102. Urology. 2015 Aug;86(2):276-81 [PMID: 26194296]
  103. J Urol. 1980 Mar;123(3):370-4 [PMID: 7359641]
  104. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996 Sep;51(9):568-74 [PMID: 8873157]
  105. J Urol. 1988 Sep;140(3):552-4 [PMID: 3411672]
  106. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Dec;24(12):2029-30 [PMID: 23867973]
  107. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;51(3):359-62 [PMID: 23040917]
  108. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Oct;119(1):18-20 [PMID: 22840600]
  109. J Urol. 1978 Jun;119(6):742-3 [PMID: 351213]
  110. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1999;10(2):116-7 [PMID: 10384974]
  111. Urology. 2011 Sep;78(3):567-71 [PMID: 21782221]
  112. Br Med J. 1940 Dec 7;2(4170):778-9 [PMID: 20783427]
  113. Int Urol Nephrol. 2007;39(4):1085-90 [PMID: 17333515]
  114. Can Med Assoc J. 1958 Nov 15;79(10):801-5 [PMID: 13596911]
  115. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(10):1248-51 [PMID: 17068685]
  116. J Am Coll Surg. 1998 Jun;186(6):645-8 [PMID: 9632151]
  117. J Urol. 2005 Dec;174(6):2239-43 [PMID: 16280778]
  118. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2012 Dec;7(4):307-10 [PMID: 23362433]
  119. J Endourol. 2009 Mar;23(3):475-9 [PMID: 19216638]
  120. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2003 Dec;48(3):295-304 [PMID: 14693342]
  121. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 Feb;20(1):13-5 [PMID: 20059325]
  122. Urol Ann. 2012 Sep;4(3):154-7 [PMID: 23248521]
  123. Curr Urol. 2013 Nov;7(2):75-82 [PMID: 24917763]
  124. J Urol. 1975 Sep;114(3):389-90 [PMID: 1142520]
  125. BMJ Case Rep. 2014 Jun 10;2014: [PMID: 24916979]
  126. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Jul;70(1):61-3 [PMID: 3299181]
  127. J Urol. 1960 Apr;83:404-8 [PMID: 13817721]
  128. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Dec;80(12):1137-8 [PMID: 11846712]
  129. Urology. 2015 Mar;85(3):544-6 [PMID: 25586477]
  130. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(2):317-20 [PMID: 17885818]
  131. Am J Surg. 1950 Oct;80(4):383-5 [PMID: 14771344]
  132. Urol Int. 1955;1(1):66-71 [PMID: 13256824]
  133. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 May;83(5 Pt 2):899-901 [PMID: 8159391]

MeSH Term

Female
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Humans
Laparoscopy
Treatment Outcome
Vesicovaginal Fistula
Journal Article Meta-Analysis Review Systematic Review
Article has an altmetric score of 3

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0VVFapproachsurgicaltreatmentpatientsfistulascommonlymanagementsystematicreviewdatastudiesalgorithmpreferredwomenfollowingbenigngynaecologicsurgerymeta-analysisconservativepostsurgical96transvaginalfollowedcases95%CI:showedregardingBACKGROUND:VesicovaginalacquiredurinarytractlackstandardizedSurgerytreatprimaryOBJECTIVE:carryeffectivenessoperativetechniquessecondaryobjectivedefinetimedeterminetypesstudydesignsMETHODS:PubMedOldMedlineEmbaseCochraneCentralRegisterControlledTrialsusedsourcesmodelledPreferredReportingItemsSystematicReviewsMeta-AnalysesstatementincludingregistrationnumberCRD42012002097RESULTS:reviewed282fulltextarticlesidentify124inclusion1379/14304%treatedsurgicallyOverallperformedmajority39%transabdominal/transvesicalroute36%laparoscopic/robotic15%combinedtransabdominal-transvaginal3%Successrate9286%95%CI:7954-99899798%13-99299163%8768-9703prolongedcatheterdrainage79/124637%providedinformationlengthfollow-uppoorreportingstandardprognosisComplicationsstudiedselectivelyDueinconsistencyimpossibleanalysecollectivelyCONCLUSIONS:Althoughliteratureimpreciseinconsistentexistingindicateoperationmainlystrategyfemalesclearodds-onfavoritediseasewellcurrentevidenceallowaccurateestimationsuccesscomplicationratesStandardisationterminologyrequiredcanmanagedproperbasedcharacteristicsfistulaManagementvesicovaginalVVFssurgery:

Similar Articles

Cited By