Singh Vishwajeet, Mehrotra Seema, Bansal Ankur, Akhtar Asif, Sinha Rahul Janak
Department of Urology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Turk J Urol. 2019 Sep 1;45(5):377-383. doi: 10.5152/tud.2019.85233. Print 2019 Sep.
Assessment of results of repairing vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) with or without the use of interposition flaps.
This prospective randomized study was conducted between January 2012 to December 2017 in the Department of Urology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India. Obstetric and gynecological simple fistula of ≤4 cm were included for evaluation. Those with complex or complicated fistula or fistula due to malignancy were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups (group 1 and group 2) depending upon route of repair i.e., transvaginal or transabdominal, respectively, as per the characteristics and location of the fistula. These two groups of patients were randomized into two subgroups (1A, 1B and 2A, 2B) based on the inclusion or omission of the interposition flap during fistula repair. Perioperative and postoperative parameters (blood loss, mean operating time, hospital stay, and requirement of analgesics) and success rates of fistula repair were compared. All complications that occurred in the postoperative period till the last follow-up appointment were recorded. The Clavien-Dindo Classification was used to stratify the complications.
Fifty-seven patients underwent transvaginal repair in group 1 (29 with Martius flap: group 1A; 28 without Martius flap: group 1B), while 69 patients underwent transabdominal repair in group 2 (35 with interposition flap: group 2A; 34 without flap: group 2B). Blood loss, mean operating time, hospital stay, and the requirement of analgesics were comparable between each subgroup-1A versus 1B and 2A versus 2B, respectively. The overall success rate of repair across all groups was 96.04% (121/126). The success rate was 93.1% in transvaginal repair with Martius flap versus 96.43% in transvaginal repair with no flap (p=1.0). Success rate was 97.1% in transabdominal repair with an omental flap versus 97.06% in without an omental flap (p=1.0). Mean follow-up period was 39.6 months (range: 6-68 months). Out of 29 patients with Martius flap interposition, 9 (31.03%) of them reported a significantly reduced sensation on the labia majora. Of these 9 patients, 5 reported numbness while the remaining 4 experienced pain as compared to the patients in subgroup IB, who did not report any altered sensation in the labia. (p=0.0019).
The success rates are similar in simple VVF repair (fistula size less than 4 cm) irrespective of the use of interposition flaps. However, overall morbidities following repair with the interposition flap are higher when compared with repair without interposition flap, either by the transvaginal or by the transabdominal route.
评估使用或不使用插入皮瓣修复膀胱阴道瘘(VVF)的结果。
这项前瞻性随机研究于2012年1月至2017年12月在印度勒克瑙乔治国王医科大学泌尿外科进行。纳入评估的为≤4cm的妇产科单纯瘘管。排除复杂或合并瘘管或恶性肿瘤导致的瘘管患者。根据瘘管的特征和位置,患者分为两组(1组和2组),分别根据经阴道或经腹的修复途径。这两组患者根据瘘管修复过程中是否使用插入皮瓣随机分为两个亚组(1A、1B和2A、2B)。比较围手术期和术后参数(失血量、平均手术时间、住院时间和镇痛药需求)以及瘘管修复成功率。记录术后直至最后一次随访预约期间发生的所有并发症。采用Clavien-Dindo分类法对并发症进行分层。
1组57例患者接受经阴道修复(29例使用Martius皮瓣:1A组;28例未使用Martius皮瓣:1B组),而2组69例患者接受经腹修复(35例使用插入皮瓣:2A组;34例未使用皮瓣:2B组)。各亚组1A与1B、2A与2B之间的失血量、平均手术时间、住院时间和镇痛药需求具有可比性。所有组的总体修复成功率为96.04%(121/126)。使用Martius皮瓣的经阴道修复成功率为93.1%,未使用皮瓣的经阴道修复成功率为96.43%(p = 1.0)。使用网膜瓣的经腹修复成功率为97.1%,未使用网膜瓣的经腹修复成功率为97.06%(p = 1.0)。平均随访期为39.6个月(范围:6 - 68个月)。在29例使用Martius皮瓣插入的患者中,9例(31.03%)报告大阴唇感觉明显减退。与1B亚组未报告大阴唇感觉改变的患者相比,这9例患者中,5例报告麻木,其余4例经历疼痛。(p = 0.0019)。
单纯VVF修复(瘘管大小小于4cm)无论是否使用插入皮瓣,成功率相似。然而,与经阴道或经腹途径不使用插入皮瓣的修复相比,使用插入皮瓣修复后的总体发病率更高。