ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Vesico-Vaginal Fistula Repair Using Pneumovesicoscopy: A Single Tertiary Care Center Study.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisVesico-vaginal fistula (VVF) is an abnormal bladder-vagina communication causing continuous urinary incontinence. This prospective study compares the efficiency and outcomes of pneumovesicoscopy (PV) versus laparoscopy (LA) for repairing simple to intermediate fistulas.
methodsFifty female patients, primarily with iatrogenic simple and intermediate VVF following hysterectomy, were assigned to either the PV group (N = 25) or the LA group (N = 25) at a tertiary care center in India. Evaluated outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay length, and success rates, defined by a negative two-swab test at follow-up.
resultsThe PV group demonstrated significant advantages, including a shorter mean operative time (110.5 ± 25.1 min vs. 175.8 ± 38.7 min, p < 0.001) and lower estimated blood loss (25.1 ± 8.3 mL vs. 40.2 ± 12.5 mL, p < 0.001). Additionally, mean hospital stays were significantly shorter for PV patients (2.1 ± 0.7 days vs. 4.5 ± 1.2 days, p < 0.001). At 3 months, success rates were comparable between the groups, with 88% for PV and 84% for LA (p = 0.500). Complication rates were lower in the PV group (12%) compared to the LA group (28%).
conclusionPneumovesicoscopy is a feasible, safe, and effective minimally invasive technique for VVF repair. It provides shorter operative times, reduced blood loss, and quicker recovery while maintaining success rates equivalent to conventional laparoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42429940What 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.