ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Prevalence and repair patterns of vesicovaginal fistula: a large retrospective population-based cohort analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transvaginal vesicovaginal fistula repair-high success with low morbidity despite radiation or prior repair.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Vesicovaginal fistula repair: comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and predictors of success in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Urinary Incontinence After Successful Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair.Cureus · 2025Article
- Preliminary experience with minimally invasive transvaginal single-port laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair: report of 10 cases.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Clinical application of hyperbaric oxygen therapy after bladder fistula repair surgery: a report of 7 cases and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVesicovaginal fistulae (VVF) have a significant negative impact on quality of life, with failed surgical repair resulting in ongoing morbidity. Our aim was to characterize the rate of VVF repair and repair failures over time, and to identify predictors of repair failure.
methodsWe completed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all women who underwent VVF repair in Ontario, Canada, aged 18 and older between 2005 and 2018. Risk factors for repair failure were identified using multivariable cox proportional hazard analysis; interrupted time series analysis was used to determine change in VVF repair rate over time.
results814 patients underwent VVF repair. Of these, 117 required a second repair (14%). Mean age at surgery was 52 years (SD 15). Most patients had undergone prior gynecological surgery (68%), and 76% were due to iatrogenic injury. Most repairs were performed by urologists (60%). Predictors of VVF re-repair included iatrogenic injury etiology (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.45, p = 0.009), and endoscopic repair (HR 6.1, 95% CI 3.1-11.1, p < 0.05,); protective factors included combined intra-abdominal/trans-vaginal repair (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.009), and surgeon years in practice (21 + years-HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9, p = 0.005). Age adjusted annual rate of VVF repair (ranging from 0.8 to 1.58 per 100,000 women) and re-repair did not change over time.
conclusionsVVF repair and re-repair rates remained constant between 2005 and 2018. Iatrogenic injury and endoscopic repair predicted repair failure; combined intra-abdominal/trans-vaginal repair, and surgeon years in practice were protective. This suggests surgeon experience may protect against VVF repair failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38478136What 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.