AIM: Despite advances in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), the treatment of rectovaginal (RV) fistula remains challenging. Transrectal (RAF) and transvaginal advancement flaps (VAF) represent two possible alternative surgical approaches to this problem. The study aims to review and compare the results of these approaches for RV fistula in CD. METHOD: Medical databases from January 1983 to August 2008 were consulted for potentially relevant publications. All studies dealing with the RV fistula repair in CD with RAF or VAF were included. Two researchers worked independently on the study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis phases of the study. Analyses were performed with Review Manager 2.0 software. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies were included with a total of 219 flap procedures for RV fistula. The primary fistula closure pooled rate was 54.2% (range 33.3-100%) after RAF and 69.4% (range 0-92.9%) after VAF (P = 0.13). Four studies were eligible for direct comparison between the two procedures. No clearly significant difference between RAF compared with VAF in terms of primary fistula closure rate, nor in terms of overall fistula closure rate, was apparent. The risk of recurrence after RAF compared with VAF seemed similar; in this case, only two studies were taken into consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by a small number of studies of low clinical evidence level, this systematic review suggests that there is no significant difference in terms of outcome between RAF and VAF for RV fistula in CD.
AIM: Despite advances in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD), the treatment of rectovaginal (RV) fistula remains challenging. Transrectal (RAF) and transvaginal advancement flaps (VAF) represent two possible alternative surgical approaches to this problem. The study aims to review and compare the results of these approaches for RV fistula in CD. METHOD: Medical databases from January 1983 to August 2008 were consulted for potentially relevant publications. All studies dealing with the RV fistula repair in CD with RAF or VAF were included. Two researchers worked independently on the study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis phases of the study. Analyses were performed with Review Manager 2.0 software. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies were included with a total of 219 flap procedures for RV fistula. The primary fistula closure pooled rate was 54.2% (range 33.3-100%) after RAF and 69.4% (range 0-92.9%) after VAF (P = 0.13). Four studies were eligible for direct comparison between the two procedures. No clearly significant difference between RAF compared with VAF in terms of primary fistula closure rate, nor in terms of overall fistula closure rate, was apparent. The risk of recurrence after RAF compared with VAF seemed similar; in this case, only two studies were taken into consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by a small number of studies of low clinical evidence level, this systematic review suggests that there is no significant difference in terms of outcome between RAF and VAF for RV fistula in CD.
Authors: D Bouchard; F Pigot; G Staumont; L Siproudhis; L Abramowitz; P Benfredj; C Brochard; N Fathallah; J-L Faucheron; T Higuero; Y Panis; V de Parades; B Vinson-Bonnet; D Laharie Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: D Bouchard; L Abramowitz; G Bouguen; C Brochard; A Dabadie; V de Parades; M Eléouet-Kaplan; N Fathallah; J-L Faucheron; L Maggiori; Y Panis; F Pigot; P Rouméguère; A Sénéjoux; L Siproudhis; G Staumont; J-M Suduca; B Vinson-Bonnet; J-D Zeitoun Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Matthew J Aungst; Jeremy J Bearss; Bridget S Lewis; John R Fischer; Michael R Bonhage; Johnnie Wright Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 2.894