ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Rectovaginal fistulas after radiation therapy: treatment options and outcomes - a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Radiation-induced rectovaginal fistula (RI-RVF) is a severe late complication of pelvic radiotherapy, arising predominantly after treatment for gynaecological malignancy and characterised by fibrosis, ischaemia, impaired healing and poor quality of life. No universally accepted treatment standard exists. Methods: A structured narrative review searched PubMed and Google Scholar (January 2020-July 2026), with earlier landmark studies identified through reference-list screening; it was not conducted or reported as a systematic review. Eight reviewers screened records singly rather than in duplicate, with uncertain cases resolved by consensus with two senior supervisors. Predefined outcome domains beyond anatomical closure were extracted, including stoma-free survival, continence, low anterior resection syndrome, sexual function, pelvic pain and patient-reported quality of life. Seventy publications were cited, of which 26 constitute the clinical evidence base; the remaining 44 provided anatomical, radiotherapeutic, methodological or background context. Results: Faecal diversion is an appropriate initial, bridging or palliative intervention rather than a universal first-line treatment; spontaneous closure after diversion alone is uncommon (6/50; 12%), and colostomy and ileostomy carry distinct complication profiles. The Martius flap is applied mainly to low fistulas with small defects; the quoted 1.5 cm threshold reflects selection criteria in published series rather than a validated cut-off, and larger defects have been repaired successfully. Gracilis interposition is used for complex or recurrent fistulas, although supporting meta-analytic data derive from heterogeneous perineal fistula cohorts in which only approximately 18% of patients had received radiotherapy. Delayed coloanal anastomosis was associated with fewer anastomotic complications than immediate anastomosis in low rectal cancer meta-analyses, though not consistently across endpoints; this evidence does not derive from RI-RVF populations. Functional and patient-reported outcomes were reported inconsistently, with non-comparable instruments. Evidence for stromal vascular fraction is confined to case reports and small series. Conclusions: The overall certainty of the available evidence is low. Martius flap reconstruction, graciloplasty and delayed coloanal anastomosis are established options, but reported efficacy must be interpreted against the heterogeneity and indirectness of the available evidence. Stromal vascular fraction remains experimental. Prospective studies should redefine success beyond anatomical closure to include stoma-free survival, functional recovery and patient-reported quality of life.
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.