Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Jairath,Ankush
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: S.B,Sudharsan, Mishra,Shashikant, Ganpule,Arvind, Sabnis,Ravindra, Desai,Mahesh
Tipo de documento: Relatório
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000100168
Resumo: ABSTRACT Objective The most common acquired fistula of the urinary tract is Vesicovaginal fistulae (VVF) (1) posing social stigmata for the patient as well as a surgical challenge for the urologist. Here we present our initial experience with Robotic assisted laparoscopic repair of VVF, its safety and efficacy. Materials and Methods Seven out of eight fistulas were post hysterectomy; five had undergone abdominal while two had laparoscopic hysterectomy while one was due to prolonged labour. Two had associated ureteric injury. All underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic trans abdominal extravesical approach. Three 8 mm ports for robotic arms, one 12 mm port for camera and another 12 mm for assistant were used in a fan shaped manner. All had preoperative ureteric catheter placed. Bladder was closed in two layers and vagina in one layer. Omental flap placed in all cases except two where it was not possible. Drain and per urethral catheter placed in all cases. Double J stents were placed in two cases requiring ureteric implantation additionally. Results The mean age of presentation was 39.25 years (26-47 range) with mean BMI being 26.25 kg/m2 (21-32 range). Mean duration between insult and repair was 9.37 months (3-24 months). Only in single case there was history of previous repair attempt. On cystoscopy four had supratrigonal VVF and four were trigonal with mean size of 13.37 mm (7-20 mm). Mean operative time was 117.5 minutes (90-150). There were no intraoperative/postoperative complications or need for open conversion. Mean haemoglobin drop was 1.4 gm/dL (0.3-2 gm). Drain was removed once 24-48 hours output is negligible. One patient had post-operative urinary leak at 2 weeks which ceased with continuation of catheterisation for another 2 weeks. Catheter was removed after voiding cystourethrogram showed no leak at 2-3 weeks postoperatively. Mean duration of drain was 3.75 days (3-5) and per urethral catheterisation (which was removed after voiding cystourethrography) was 15.75 days (9-28). Mean hospital stay was 6.62 days (4-14). Post-operative bladder capacity was 324.28 cc (280-350) on voiding diary. Follow up ranged from 3-9 months. At 3 months of follow-up, these patients continued to void normally and there was no evidence of recurrence of VVF. Conclusion Robotic repair of VVF is safe and feasible and has additional advantages in the form of precise suturing under 3D vision and certainly a more striking and effective option especially in complex VVF repair associated with ureteric injuries (2).
id SBU-1_97a0c5cbd666f55c8713fce984e8876b
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382016000100168
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experienceABSTRACT Objective The most common acquired fistula of the urinary tract is Vesicovaginal fistulae (VVF) (1) posing social stigmata for the patient as well as a surgical challenge for the urologist. Here we present our initial experience with Robotic assisted laparoscopic repair of VVF, its safety and efficacy. Materials and Methods Seven out of eight fistulas were post hysterectomy; five had undergone abdominal while two had laparoscopic hysterectomy while one was due to prolonged labour. Two had associated ureteric injury. All underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic trans abdominal extravesical approach. Three 8 mm ports for robotic arms, one 12 mm port for camera and another 12 mm for assistant were used in a fan shaped manner. All had preoperative ureteric catheter placed. Bladder was closed in two layers and vagina in one layer. Omental flap placed in all cases except two where it was not possible. Drain and per urethral catheter placed in all cases. Double J stents were placed in two cases requiring ureteric implantation additionally. Results The mean age of presentation was 39.25 years (26-47 range) with mean BMI being 26.25 kg/m2 (21-32 range). Mean duration between insult and repair was 9.37 months (3-24 months). Only in single case there was history of previous repair attempt. On cystoscopy four had supratrigonal VVF and four were trigonal with mean size of 13.37 mm (7-20 mm). Mean operative time was 117.5 minutes (90-150). There were no intraoperative/postoperative complications or need for open conversion. Mean haemoglobin drop was 1.4 gm/dL (0.3-2 gm). Drain was removed once 24-48 hours output is negligible. One patient had post-operative urinary leak at 2 weeks which ceased with continuation of catheterisation for another 2 weeks. Catheter was removed after voiding cystourethrogram showed no leak at 2-3 weeks postoperatively. Mean duration of drain was 3.75 days (3-5) and per urethral catheterisation (which was removed after voiding cystourethrography) was 15.75 days (9-28). Mean hospital stay was 6.62 days (4-14). Post-operative bladder capacity was 324.28 cc (280-350) on voiding diary. Follow up ranged from 3-9 months. At 3 months of follow-up, these patients continued to void normally and there was no evidence of recurrence of VVF. Conclusion Robotic repair of VVF is safe and feasible and has additional advantages in the form of precise suturing under 3D vision and certainly a more striking and effective option especially in complex VVF repair associated with ureteric injuries (2).Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2016-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/reportinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000100168International braz j urol v.42 n.1 2016reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0629info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessJairath,AnkushS.B,SudharsanMishra,ShashikantGanpule,ArvindSabnis,RavindraDesai,Mahesheng2016-03-28T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382016000100168Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2016-03-28T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
title Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
spellingShingle Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
Jairath,Ankush
title_short Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
title_full Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
title_fullStr Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
title_full_unstemmed Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
title_sort Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience
author Jairath,Ankush
author_facet Jairath,Ankush
S.B,Sudharsan
Mishra,Shashikant
Ganpule,Arvind
Sabnis,Ravindra
Desai,Mahesh
author_role author
author2 S.B,Sudharsan
Mishra,Shashikant
Ganpule,Arvind
Sabnis,Ravindra
Desai,Mahesh
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Jairath,Ankush
S.B,Sudharsan
Mishra,Shashikant
Ganpule,Arvind
Sabnis,Ravindra
Desai,Mahesh
description ABSTRACT Objective The most common acquired fistula of the urinary tract is Vesicovaginal fistulae (VVF) (1) posing social stigmata for the patient as well as a surgical challenge for the urologist. Here we present our initial experience with Robotic assisted laparoscopic repair of VVF, its safety and efficacy. Materials and Methods Seven out of eight fistulas were post hysterectomy; five had undergone abdominal while two had laparoscopic hysterectomy while one was due to prolonged labour. Two had associated ureteric injury. All underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic trans abdominal extravesical approach. Three 8 mm ports for robotic arms, one 12 mm port for camera and another 12 mm for assistant were used in a fan shaped manner. All had preoperative ureteric catheter placed. Bladder was closed in two layers and vagina in one layer. Omental flap placed in all cases except two where it was not possible. Drain and per urethral catheter placed in all cases. Double J stents were placed in two cases requiring ureteric implantation additionally. Results The mean age of presentation was 39.25 years (26-47 range) with mean BMI being 26.25 kg/m2 (21-32 range). Mean duration between insult and repair was 9.37 months (3-24 months). Only in single case there was history of previous repair attempt. On cystoscopy four had supratrigonal VVF and four were trigonal with mean size of 13.37 mm (7-20 mm). Mean operative time was 117.5 minutes (90-150). There were no intraoperative/postoperative complications or need for open conversion. Mean haemoglobin drop was 1.4 gm/dL (0.3-2 gm). Drain was removed once 24-48 hours output is negligible. One patient had post-operative urinary leak at 2 weeks which ceased with continuation of catheterisation for another 2 weeks. Catheter was removed after voiding cystourethrogram showed no leak at 2-3 weeks postoperatively. Mean duration of drain was 3.75 days (3-5) and per urethral catheterisation (which was removed after voiding cystourethrography) was 15.75 days (9-28). Mean hospital stay was 6.62 days (4-14). Post-operative bladder capacity was 324.28 cc (280-350) on voiding diary. Follow up ranged from 3-9 months. At 3 months of follow-up, these patients continued to void normally and there was no evidence of recurrence of VVF. Conclusion Robotic repair of VVF is safe and feasible and has additional advantages in the form of precise suturing under 3D vision and certainly a more striking and effective option especially in complex VVF repair associated with ureteric injuries (2).
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/report
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format report
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000100168
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382016000100168
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0629
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.42 n.1 2016
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318074590920704