Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: VVF is conventionally repaired by open transvaginal or transabdominal routes. In last few decades, minimally invasive techniques (laparoscopic/robotic) for VVF repair have gained popularity. We have reported our experience of transvaginal vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) repair and compared it with the literature reported population matched cohort of VVF repair done by laparoscopic or robot-assisted techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Intraoperative and post-operative parameters including aetiology of fistula, location, operative time, blood loss, major complications, hospital stay and success rate of 202 patients with simple VVF undergoing transvaginal repair at a tertiary care hospital from 1999 to 2019 were recorded. We also compared our transvaginal repair cohort (n = 202) with the literature reported cohort of 260 patients undergoing VVF repair by minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robot assisted) techniques in the systematic review by Miklos et al. RESULTS: Most common aetiology of VVF in our series was post hysterectomy in 122 (60.39%) cases followed by trauma during emergency caesareans section in 80 (39.60%) cases. Transvaginal route had higher success rate than minimally invasive approach (99.50 vs. 96.50%, respectively). Mean operative time was lesser in transvaginal group than the minimally invasive group (63 ± 16 min vs. 161.56 ± 41.02 min, p < 0.01) with shorter mean hospital stay in transvaginal group (3 ± 1 days vs. 3.5 ± 1.16 days, respectively, p < 0.01). Mean estimated blood loss was significantly lesser in transvaginal repair (p < 0.01). 62% patients were sexually active at last follow-up. The cost of transvaginal VVF repair is significantly lower compared to repair by minimally invasive approach. CONCLUSION: Transvaginal VVF repair is comparable to minimally invasive approach in terms of post-operative outcomes and morbidity; however, transvaginal repair performs better in terms of cost and resource utilization.