Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women who underwent repair in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Habtamu Endashaw Hareru, Zemachu Ashuro, Berhanu Gidisa Debela, Mesfin Abebe
Author Information
  1. Habtamu Endashaw Hareru: School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia. ORCID
  2. Zemachu Ashuro: Department of Environmental Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia. ORCID
  3. Berhanu Gidisa Debela: School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia.
  4. Mesfin Abebe: Department of Midwifery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obstetric fistula repair failure can result in increased depression, social isolation, financial burden for the woman, and fistula care programs. However, there is limited, comprehensive evidence on obstetric fistula repair failure in Sub-Saharan African countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of obstetric fistula repair failure and associated factors among women who underwent surgical repair in Sub-Saharan African countries.
METHODS: To identify potential articles, a systematic search was done utilizing online databases (PubMed, Hinari, and Google Scholar). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement (PRISMA) guideline was used to report the review's findings. I2 test statistics were employed to examine study heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used to assess the pooled prevalence of obstetric fistula repair failure, and the association was determined using the log odds ratio. Publication bias was investigated using the funnel plot and Egger's statistical test at the 5% level of significance. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were done to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. The data were analyzed using STATA version 17 statistical software.
RESULTS: A total of 24 articles with 9866 study participants from 13 Sub-Saharan African countries were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of obstetric fistula repair failure in sub-Saharan Africa was 24.92% [95% CI: 20.34-29.50%]. The sub-group analysis by country revealed that the highest prevalence was in Angola (58%, 95% CI: 53.20-62.80%) and the lowest in Rwanda (13.9, 95% CI: 9.79-18.01%). Total urethral damage [OR��� = ���3.50, 95% CI: 2.09, 4.91], large fistula [OR = 3.09, 95% CI: (2.00, 4.10)], duration of labor [OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.76], and previous fistula repair [OR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.94, 3.45] were factors associated with obstetric fistula repair failure.
CONCLUSION: Women who received surgical treatment for obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan African countries experienced more repair failures than the WHO standards. Obstetric fistula repair failure was affected by urethral damage, fistula size, duration of labor, types of fistula, and history of previous repairs. Therefore, we suggest policy measures specific to each country to provide special attention to the prevention of all risk factors, including poor nutrition, multiparty, obstructed labor, and maternal age, which can result in conditions like large fistulas, urethral damage, and repeat repair, in order to reduce obstetric fistula repair failure.

References

  1. Eur Urol. 2016 Sep;70(3):478-92 [PMID: 26922407]
  2. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64 [PMID: 19622511]
  3. Womens Health Issues. 1996 Jul-Aug;6(4):229-34 [PMID: 8754673]
  4. BJOG. 2005 Sep;112(9):1328-30 [PMID: 16101616]
  5. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1011-9 [PMID: 15118632]
  6. BMC Urol. 2011 Dec 07;11:23 [PMID: 22151960]
  7. BJOG. 2006 Apr;113(4):482-5 [PMID: 16489933]
  8. Lancet. 2006 Sep 30;368(9542):1201-9 [PMID: 17011947]
  9. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Jul;90(7):753-60 [PMID: 21542810]
  10. Reprod Health. 2016 Nov 8;13(1):135 [PMID: 27821123]
  11. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Nov;99 Suppl 1:S117-21 [PMID: 17880979]
  12. Lancet. 2015 Jul 4;386(9988):56-62 [PMID: 25911172]
  13. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 May;200(5):578.e1-4 [PMID: 19200932]
  14. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Nov;99 Suppl 1:S10-5 [PMID: 17727854]
  15. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008 Jan;30(1):44-50 [PMID: 18198067]
  16. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015 Sep;65(9):954-9 [PMID: 26338740]
  17. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Jan;148 Suppl 1:6-8 [PMID: 31943187]
  18. Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Mar;29(3):345-351 [PMID: 28600757]
  19. Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Sep;32(9):2473-2482 [PMID: 33416963]
  20. Arch Med Sci. 2010 Apr 30;6(2):253-6 [PMID: 22371755]
  21. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2005 Jul;60(7 Suppl 1):S3-S51 [PMID: 16034313]
  22. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011 Jan;33(1):30-35 [PMID: 21272433]
  23. Pan Afr Med J. 2023 Feb 24;44:105 [PMID: 37250682]
  24. BJOG. 2007 Aug;114(8):1010-7 [PMID: 17506793]
  25. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Jan;148 Suppl 1:9-15 [PMID: 31943185]
  26. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Dec;19(12):1659-62 [PMID: 18690403]
  27. BMC Womens Health. 2022 Jul 10;22(1):288 [PMID: 35811314]
  28. BJOG. 2007 Nov;114(11):1439-41 [PMID: 17903234]
  29. Trop Med Int Health. 2017 Aug;22(8):938-959 [PMID: 28510988]
  30. BMC Res Notes. 2015 Dec 12;8:774 [PMID: 26654111]
  31. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Aug;33(8):1260-1267 [PMID: 29663281]
  32. Urology. 2016 Nov;97:80-85 [PMID: 27496296]
  33. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013 Feb;120(2):178-82 [PMID: 23141371]
  34. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Dec;41(12):1726-1733 [PMID: 30987849]
  35. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;54(2):e21-33 [PMID: 19249652]
  36. BMC Urol. 2016 Jul 12;16(1):41 [PMID: 27406310]
  37. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Nov;99 Suppl 1:S57-64 [PMID: 17803995]
  38. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Jan;148 Suppl 1:3-5 [PMID: 31943179]
  39. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Oct;207(4):248-58 [PMID: 22475385]
  40. Trop Med Int Health. 2022 Sep;27(9):831-839 [PMID: 35749231]
  41. Pan Afr Med J. 2019 Oct 16;34:91 [PMID: 31934234]
  42. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):524-31 [PMID: 22914460]
  43. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Apr 29;20(1):257 [PMID: 32349703]
  44. BMC Womens Health. 2020 Mar 4;20(1):40 [PMID: 32131799]

MeSH Term

Humans
Female
Africa South of the Sahara
Pregnancy
Treatment Failure
Vesicovaginal Fistula
Prevalence
Rectovaginal Fistula
Risk Factors
Vaginal Fistula
Obstetric Labor Complications

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0fistularepairfailureobstetricCI:95%Sub-SaharanAfricancountriesprevalencefactors=Obstetricsystematicmeta-analysispooledassociatedusingurethraldamage2[ORlabor0canresultreviewamongwomenunderwentsurgicalidentifypotentialarticlesdoneusedteststudyheterogeneitystatisticalanalysis2413sub-SaharanAfricacountry9094large3durationpreviousfistulasBACKGROUND:increaseddepressionsocialisolationfinancialburdenwomancareprogramsHoweverlimitedcomprehensiveevidenceaimeddetermineMETHODS:searchutilizingonlinedatabasesPubMedHinariGoogleScholarPreferredReportingItemsSystematicReviewMeta-AnalysisStatementPRISMAguidelinereportreview'sfindingsI2statisticsemployedexaminerandom-effectsmodelassessassociationdeterminedlogoddsratioPublicationbiasinvestigatedfunnelplotEgger's5%levelsignificanceMeta-regressionsubgroupsourcesdataanalyzedSTATAversion17softwareRESULTS:total9866participantsincluded92%[95%2034-2950%]sub-grouprevealedhighestAngola58%5320-6280%lowestRwanda79-1801%Total[OR������35091]0010]452776]7019445]CONCLUSION:WomenreceivedtreatmentexperiencedfailuresWHOstandardsaffectedsizetypeshistoryrepairsThereforesuggestpolicymeasuresspecificprovidespecialattentionpreventionriskincludingpoornutritionmultipartyobstructedmaternalageconditionslikerepeatorderreduce

Similar Articles

Cited By