背景:肠瘘(VVF)是一种罕见的疾病。在83-93%的病例中,它是由于剖腹产而发展的。VVF的特征在于膀胱和子宫之间的非生理连通。这种疾病具有重大的社会影响,导致尿失禁,持续的医学和心理适应不良。治疗VVF的金标准是手术重建。微创方法的早期和晚期结果与开放手术没有区别,但前提是手术团队有足够的经验。
目的:评价微创手术治疗VUF的疗效。
方法:2010年至2021年共治疗15例VVF患者。患者的年龄在18至37岁之间(平均26.4岁)。平均体重指数为26.3kg/m2。平均最大瘘管直径为10.7mm(从2到25mm)。VVF的主要原因是剖宫产(93%;n=14)。在一个案例中(7%),可见辐射诱导的VVF。根据Jwik和基于临床表现的Jwik分类将患者随机分组。4例患者(27%)诊断为I型VVF,9例患者中的II型(60%),一个女人的III型。在53%(n=8)的病例中观察到复发性尿路感染。四名女性主诉慢性盆腔疼痛综合征(27%)。VAS疼痛评分不超过6分。所有患者都接受了微创手术,包括机器人辅助入路(n=5;33%)和腹腔镜入路(n=10;67%)。
结果:在4周至10年的随访期间,无VVF复发。在任何病例中都没有发现子宫切除术的适应症,然而,这是在获得知情同意后在两名妇女中进行的。机器人辅助手术的平均持续时间为118分钟(80-140),与腹腔镜入路125.5分钟(90-160)相比(p>0.05)。机器人手术后的平均停留时间为5.2天(范围为4到8天)和6.7天(从5到10天;p>0.05),分别。术中失血量不超过130ml。腹腔镜检查的平均值为97毫升,与机器人辅助方法的82毫升相比(p>0.05)。在这两组中,根据Clavien-Dindo分类,没有术中和术后并发症.因此,机器人辅助和腹腔镜入路之间的VVF闭合结果无显著差异.
结论:微创手术重建VVF的结果与开放手术没有区别,取决于及时诊断,坚持严格的手术技术,和手术经验,不管方法。
BACKGROUND: Vesicouterine fistula (VVF) is a rare disease. In 83-93% of cases it develops due to caesarean section. VVF is characterized by non-physiological communication between the bladder and the uterus. This disorder has a significant social impact, causing incontinence, persistent medical and psychological maladaptation. The gold standard for treating VVF is surgical reconstruction. Early and late results of minimally invasive approaches do not differ from open procedure, but only if the surgical team has sufficient experience.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency of surgical treatment of VUF using a minimally invasive technique.
METHODS: From 2010 to 2021 a total of 15 patients with VVF were treated. The age of the patients varied from 18 to 37 years (mean 26.4 years). The average body mass index was 26.3 kg/m2. The mean maximum fistula diameter was 10.7 mm (from 2 to 25 mm). The predominant cause of VVF was cesarean section (93%; n=14). In one case (7%), radiation-induced VVF was seen. Patients were randomized according to the Jwik and Jwik classification based on clinical manifestations. A type I of VVF was diagnosed in 4 patients (27%), type II in 9 patients (60%), type III in one woman. Recurrent urinary tract infection was observed in 53% (n=8) of cases. Four women were complaint of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (27%). The pain score on VAS did not exceed 6 points. All patients were undergone to minimally invasive procedures, including robot-assisted approach (n=5; 33%) and laparoscopic access (n=10; 67%).
RESULTS: During the follow-up from 4 weeks to 10 years there was no recurrence of VVF. No indications for hysterectomy were found in any of the cases, however, it was carried out in two women after obtaining the informed consent. The average duration of robot-assisted procedure was 118 min (80-140), compared to 125.5 min (90-160) for laparoscopic access (p>0.05). The average length of stay after robotic procedure was 5.2 days (range 4 to 8 days) and 6.7 days (from 5 to 10 days; p> 0.05), respectively. Intraoperative blood loss did not exceed 130 ml. The mean value for laparoscopy was 97 ml, compared to 82 ml for robot-assisted approach (p>0.05). In both groups, there were no intra- and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Thus, there was no significant difference in the results of VVF closure between robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of minimally invasive surgical reconstruction of VVF do not differ from open procedure and depend on timely diagnosis, adherence to strict surgical techniques, and surgical experience, regardless of the approach.