ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Vesicovaginal Fistula Robotics-Assisted Repair: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this review is to evaluate the current literature on robotics-assisted vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair, with a focus on comparing outcomes of two approaches: transvesical and extravesical.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were screened from inception to 13 April 2025, using variations of the search items: "vesicovaginal fistula" and "robotic surgery." Comparative studies and case series with n ≥ 5 were eligible. Outcomes were operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complication (POC), recurrence rate, length of hospitalization (LOS), and urethral catheterization time (CT). Statistical analysis was conducted to determine overall and subgroup-specific outcomes and compare techniques for statistically significant differences.
resultsFourteen studies (206 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Combined mean OT was 169.0 ± 69.5 min, with minimal blood loss across all studies (14-90 ml). Overall POC and recurrence rates were low (4.37% and 2.91% respectively), with major complications at 0.97%. No significant differences were found between surgical approaches. Most studies reported hospital stays under 5 days, although CTs varied. Two case series on recurrent VVF reported 100% success, no complications or recurrences, low blood loss, and shorter OTs, supporting the safety and efficacy of robotics-assisted repair in complex cases.
conclusionsRobotics-assisted VVF repair was found to be a safe, effective, reproducible technique, with low complication and recurrence rates, minimal blood loss, and short hospital stays. No statistically significant difference was found between techniques. The findings also support robotics-assisted surgery as an especially valuable option in recurrent cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41925841What 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.