Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2023
Robot-assisted vesicovaginal fistula repair: comparison of the extravesical and transvesical techniques.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transrenal Ureteric Embolic Occlusion for Refractory Urinary Leakage and Fistulae: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Review
- Robotic pneumovesical vesicovaginal fistula repair using the da vinci sp system: technical feasibility and early outcomes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Vesicovaginal Fistula Robotics-Assisted Repair: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- A comprehensive review of urinary tract fistulas: the evolution of etiologies, surgical techniques, and contemporary outcomes.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectivesAlmost two decades after the description of robotic vesicovaginal fistula repair (R-VVF), the literature remains limited. The aims of this study are to report the outcomes of R-VVF and to compare the transvesical versus extravesical techniques.
methodsWe performed an observational, retrospective, multicenter study, including all patients who underwent R-VVF from March 2017 to September 2021 at four academic institutions. All abdominal VVF repair over the study period were performed using a robotic approach. The success of R-VVF was defined as the absence of clinical recurrence. The outcomes of the extravesical versus transvesical techniques were compared.
resultsTwenty-two patients were included. The median age was 43 years old (IQR 38-50). Fistulas were supratrigonal and trigonal in 18 and 4 cases respectively. Five patients had undergone previous attempts of fistula repair (22.7%). The fistulous tract was systematically excised, and an interposition flap was used in all but two cases (90.9%). The transvesical and extravesical techniques were used in 13 and 9 cases respectively. There were four postoperative complications, three minor and one major. None of the patients had vesicovaginal fistula recurrence after a median follow-up of 15 months.
conclusionsThe present series, one of the largest R-VVF reported to date, is consistent with the few series already published with a 100% cure rate. Systematic excision of the fistulous tract and the high rate of flap interposition may explain the high success rate. The transvesical and extravesical approaches yielded similar outcomes.
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.