ArticleUrology annals
Our experience of laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair in a tertiary care center.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Laparoscopic repair of vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) is gaining popularity day by day, but we have limited literature on it. This study is to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of laparoscopic VVF repair in a tertiary care center in Eastern India. Subjects and Methods: This study is a single-center retrospective study in which 11 patients of supratrigonal VVF were evaluated who underwent laparoscopic repair. Preoperative workup included history, examination, computed tomography urography, cystoscopy, and vaginoscopy. After informed consent, laparoscopic VVF repair was done under general anesthesia. Duration of surgery, the need for conversion to open procedure, intraoperative bowel injury, the need for postoperative blood transfusion, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative urinary leak, and any incontinence after catheter removal were noted. Results: All the patients had primary supratrigonal fistula of approximate size in the range of 1.5-2.0 cm. All the included patients were operated on successfully by laparoscopic technique with a mean duration of surgery of 177.91 ± 6.14 min. The mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 4.45 ± 0.52 days. There was no incidence of postoperative urine leak in any patient. After urethral catheter removal, all the patients voided well without any incontinence. Conclusions: Laparoscopic VVF repair is a safe and feasible option with satisfactory intraoperative and postoperative 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.