Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistulae with the transperitoneal-transvaginal approach: A case series

Objective To describe a novel technique of repairing the VVF using the transperitoneal-transvaginal approach. Materials and Methods From June 2011 to October 2013, four patients with symptoms of urine leakage in the vagina underwent robotic repair of VVF with the transperitoneal-transvaginal approach. Cystoscopy revealed the fistula opening on the bladder. A ureteral stent was placed through the fistulous tract. After trocar placement, the omental flap was prepared and mobilized robotically. The vagina was identified and incised. The fistulous tract was excised. Cystorrhaphy was performed in two layers in an interrupted fashion. The vaginal opening was closed with running stitches. The omentum was interposed and anchored between the bladder and vagina. Finally, the ureteral catheters were removed in case they have been placed, and an 18 Fr urethral catheter was removed on the 14th postoperative day. Results The mean age was 46 years (range: 41 to 52 years). The mean fistula diameter was 1.5 cm (range 0.3 to 2 cm). The mean operative time was 117.5 min (range: 100 to 150 min). The estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range: 50 to 150 mL). The mean hospital stay was 1.75 days (range: 1 to 3 days). The mean Foley catheter duration was 15.75 days (range: 10 to 25 days). There was no evidence of recurrence in any of the cases. Conclusions The robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal transvaginal approach for VVF is a feasible procedure when the fistula tract is identified by first intentionally opening the vagina, thereby minimizing the bladder incision and with low morbidity. .

Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistulae with the transperitoneal-transvaginal approach: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel technique of repairing the VVF using the transperitoneal-transvaginal approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 2011 to October 2013, four patients with symptoms of urine leakage in the vagina underwent robotic repair of VVF with the transperitoneal-transvaginal approach. Cystoscopy revealed the fistula opening on the bladder. A ureteral stent was placed through the fistulous tract. After trocar placement, the omental flap was prepared and mobilized robotically. The vagina was identified and incised. The fistulous tract was excised. Cystorrhaphy was performed in two layers in an interrupted fashion. The vaginal opening was closed with running stitches. The omentum was interposed and anchored between the bladder and vagina. Finally, the ureteral catheters were removed in case they have been placed, and an 18 Fr urethral catheter was removed on the 14th postoperative day. RESULTS: The mean age was 46 years (range: 41 to 52 years). The mean fistula diameter was 1.5 cm (range 0.3 to 2 cm). The mean operative time was 117.5 min (range: 100 to 150 min). The estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range: 50 to 150 mL). The mean hospital stay was 1.75 days (range: 1 to 3 days). The mean Foley catheter duration was 15.75 days (range: 10 to 25 days). There was no evidence of recurrence in any of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal transvaginal approach for VVF is a feasible procedure when the fistula tract is identified by first intentionally opening the vagina, thereby minimizing the bladder incision and with low morbidity.

Laparoscopic rectovesical fistula repair.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rectovesical fistula (RVF) is a rare complication of radical prostatectomy. A 62- year-old man with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent open radical prostatectomy that was complicated by rectal injury and subsequent RVF development. Conservative management failed, and the patient was referred for surgical correction. TECHNIQUE: The operative steps consisted of (1) cystoscopy, (2) RVF catheterization, (3) ureteral catheterization, (4) five-port transperitoneal laparoscopic approach, (5) cystotomy, (6) opening of the fistulous tract, (7) dissection between the bladder and the rectum, (8) closure of the rectum, (9) interposition of omentum, (10) suprapubic cystostomy placement, (11) bladder closure, and (12) colostomy creation. RESULTS: The operative time was 240 minutes. The hospital stay was 3 days. The urethral catheter was kept indwelling for 4 days. At 8 weeks postoperatively, the suprapubic tube was removed and the colostomy reversed. At 1-month follow-up, the patient remains free of fistula recurrence. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic rectovesical fistula repair is feasible and represents an attractive alternative to the standard approaches.