Yang Xiong1, Yunhua Tang1, Fang Huang1, Longfei Liu1, Xiangyang Zhang2. 1. Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central-South University, No.87 Xiang Ya Road, Changsha, Hunan, China. 2. 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.
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.
Authors: René Sotelo; Mirandolino B Mariano; Alejandro García-Segui; Rinci Dubois; Maximiliano Spaliviero; Wartan Keklikian; John Novoa; Henry Yaime; Antonio Finelli Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450