ArticleUrology research & practice2025
Transvaginal Repair of Supratrigonal, Juxtacervical, Vault, and Apical Vesicovaginal Fistulae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Vesicovaginal Fistula Robotics-Assisted Repair: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis.International urogynecology journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the success rate, surgical and quality of life outcomes, and complications of vaginal repair of supratrigonal, jux tacervical, vault, and apical vesicovaginal fistulae (VVF) as a group. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for studies published from January 2003 to August 2023. Sixteen (n = 612) and 15 (n = 568) studies were included in the review and meta-analysis, respectively. Risk of bias assessment was done using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Four studies (n = 196) reported sexual health outcomes. Comprehensive meta-analysis software (trial version 3) was used for quantitative synthesis. Results: The success rate (95% CI) of vaginal repair of this specific group of VVF using a random effects model was 86.3% (76.5%-92.4%). I2 was 73.72% with a Q-value of 53.27. The mean age of patients was 43.7 years. Follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 84 months. There were no major intraoperative complications except for 1 inadvertent bowel injury. Postoperative complications included Urinary tract infections (n = 5), stress incontinence (n = 2), urge incontinence (n = 2), hematuria (n = 3), and vaginal bleeding (n = 3). One hundred eighty-four patients reported no sexual dysfunction, while 6 patients had a Female Sexual Function Index score ! 26.5. Conclusion: The studies included in this meta-analysis are largely heterogeneous and retrospective, which is a limitation of this meta-analysis. Despite this, the results of this meta-analysis confirm successful correction of most of the VVF included in this review by the transvaginal route. While preferences for a given surgical approach may vary based on the number and size of the VVF or vaginal capacity, these factors need to be studied prospectively to understand their role in deciding the route of repair.
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.