ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2026
Vesicovaginal fistula repair: comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and predictors of success in open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare perioperative outcomes and evaluate predictors of successful repair in vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) cases among open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted approaches.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 78 patients who underwent transabdominal VVF repair between December 2015 and July 2024 at a tertiary referral center. Patients were categorized based on surgical approach: open (n = 31), laparoscopic (n = 31), or robotic-assisted (n = 16). Data collected included demographics, fistula etiology and location, prior radiation exposure, operative time, blood loss, use of interposition flaps, and 3-month postoperative closure status.
resultsMinimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic and robotic) demonstrated reduced operative time (P = 0.014) and blood loss (P < 0.001) compared to open surgery. Time to repair (P = 0.001) and previous repair attempts (P = 0.007) varied significantly across approaches. Post-hysterectomy fistulas had the highest success rate (95%), while radiation-induced (P = 0.031) and trigonal fistulas (failure rate 32% vs. 6% in non-trigonal; P = 0.004) were associated with poorer outcomes. Use of interposition flaps was more frequent in open cases but did not independently predict success. The surgical approach was not an independent predictor of closure rates; however, minimally invasive techniques were associated with better perioperative outcomes.
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of selecting the surgical approach based on fistula characteristics and clinical context. Minimally invasive techniques provided perioperative advantages, whereas open surgery remains essential for complex cases. Careful preoperative planning and well-informed clinical decision-making are crucial to optimize management. Further prospective, multicenter studies are warranted to confirm these findings and guide standardized best practices.
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.