Perioperative Outcomes of Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair by Surgical Approach.

IMPORTANCE: Data comparing perioperative outcomes between transvaginal, transabdominal, and laparoscopic/robotic vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair are limited but are important for surgical planning and patient counseling. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess perioperative morbidity of VVF repair performed via various approaches. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify women who underwent transvaginal, transabdominal, or laparoscopic/robotic VVF repair from 2009 to 2020. Associations of surgical approach with baseline characteristics, blood transfusion, prolonged hospitalization (>4 days), and 30-day outcomes (any major or minor complication or return to the operating room) were evaluated with χ 2 , Fisher exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the adjusted association of approach with 30-day complications and prolonged hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 449 women underwent VVF repair, including 252 transvaginal (56.1%), 148 transabdominal (33.0%), and 49 laparoscopic/robotic procedures (10.9%). Abdominal repair was associated with a longer length of hospitalization (median, 3 days vs 1 day transvaginal and laparoscopic/robotic; P < 0.001), higher risk of prolonged length of stay (abdominal, 21.1%; transvaginal, 4.0%; laparoscopic/robotic, 2.0%; P < 0.001), major complications (abdominal, 4.7%; transvaginal, 0.8%; laparoscopic/robotic, 0.0%; P = 0.03), and perioperative transfusion (abdominal, 5.0%; transvaginal, 0.0%; laparoscopic/robotic, 2.1%; P = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, the abdominal approach was independently associated with an increased risk of prolonged hospitalization compared with laparoscopic/robotic (odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-93.21; P = 0.02) and transvaginal (odds ratio, 6.09; 95% confidence interval, 2.87-12.92; P < 0.001) but not with major/minor complications ( P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Transvaginal and laparoscopic/robotic approaches to VVF repair are associated with lower rates of prolonged hospitalization, major complications, and readmission compared with a transabdominal approach.

Evaluation and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition that can have a large impact on a patient's quality of life. Patients with prolapse may present with a vaginal bulge or pressure, bladder, bowel, or sexual symptoms. The diagnosis is confirmed on physical examination which may show descent of the anterior vaginal wall, vaginal apex (cervix/uterus or vaginal cuff in those with a prior hysterectomy), posterior vaginal wall, or a combination of these. Patients with asymptomatic prolapse can typically be reassured that it may be managed with observation, though might gradually progress with time. In patients with symptomatic prolapse, management options include conservative measures, pessary use, or surgical intervention. Pessaries can successfully be fitted for most patients that prefer this line of therapy. Surgical interventions include native tissue transvaginal surgeries or a transabdominal (laparoscopic or robotic) approach with use of polypropylene mesh. The choice of surgical procedure includes consideration of an individual's medical and surgical history, physical exam findings, differences in the risks and durability of the operations, and the patient's preference. Ultimately, the surgical plan is based on shared decision making with the patient to best achieve their treatment goals. In this article we will review pertinent clinical considerations in the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of pelvic organ prolapse.

Robotic repair of a branching vesicouterine and vesicovaginal fistula.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We present technical considerations and tips for repairing a complex branching vesicouterine and vesicovaginal fistula via a robotic approach. METHODS: A 31-year-old female presented with constant urinary leakage following a vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. Evaluation with cystoscopy and cross-sectional imaging demonstrated a branching vesicouterine and vesicovaginal fistula. Repair with robotic-assisted approach was carried out. An intentional cystotomy was made with a tear-drop incision around the fistula tracts. The vesicouterine and vesicovaginal planes were dissected and mobilized. The vaginotomy and cystotomy were closed in a running two-layer fashion with absorbable suture and the uterine defect closed with interrupted absorbable suture. Retrograde bladder filling confirmed a watertight repair. A broad peritoneal flap was created, positioned, and secured with care to ensure it covered past the apex of the fistula closure. RESULTS: Following overnight observation she had an uneventful recovery, including catheter removal at 3 weeks after cystogram confirmed resolution of the fistula. At 6 weeks the fistula and her leakage remained resolved, with no de novo voiding or incontinence symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic approach to complex branching vesicouterine and vesicovaginal fistula is technically feasible. Careful attention to surgical technique and the use of tissue interposition may improve fistula resolution rates.