ArticleUpdates in surgery2022
Transvaginal approach for rectovaginal fistula: experience from a single institution.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Fecal Diversion on Outcomes Following Martius Flap Repair for Rectovaginal Fistula.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Rectovaginal fistulas after radiation therapy: treatment options and outcomes - a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transvaginal (TV) repair, featuring its feasibility, effectiveness, safety, and technically less demandingness, is one of the surgical approaches for management of rectovaginal fistula (RVF). However, there are limited numbers of publications available on the transvaginal approach for RVF repair. To this end, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the preliminary outcomes of the transvaginal approach performed by the team, and to further assess its feasibility, safety and effectiveness in the management of RVF. A retrospective analysis was conducted at a single institution. Patients with RVF who had undergone three transvaginal surgical techniques, i.e. transvaginal fistulectomy and stratified suture, transvaginal flip and ligation fistula tract and transvaginal fistula stapled closure were included. Besides, the demographics, operative data, postoperative complications and follow-up outcomes of the patients were collected prospectively. A total of 49 female patients (mean age, 35.76 ± 13.97 years) underwent transvaginal approach, 42 of which were followed up with a median follow-up of 26 months (range 3-82 months), and 29 had closure of the fistula (successful closure rate of 59.1%). The successful closure rates were only significantly different between previous repair times (p = 0.031), and several minor complications including postoperative pain (n = 3), constipation (n = 1), and lower urinary tract infection (n = 1) were observed. Symptomatic improvement was reported in all patients with failed closure. Transvaginal approach for RVF repair is effective, safe, and feasible, and is therefore considered an alternative to transrectal advancement flap for low and mid-level traumatic RVF with normal sphincter function. With the advantage of better surgical access, transvaginal approach is recognized as the initial choice for the surgical repair of RVF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.