A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Practice patterns regarding management of rectovaginal fistulae: a multicenter review from the Fellows' Pelvic Research Network. | LitMetric

Practice patterns regarding management of rectovaginal fistulae: a multicenter review from the Fellows' Pelvic Research Network.

Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg

From the *Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH; †Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California San Diego Health System & Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA; ‡Section of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Medstar Washington Hospital Center/Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; §Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; ∥Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; ¶Division of Urogynecology, Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA; **Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Scott & White Hospital/Texas A&M Health Science Center, Temple, TX; ††Division of Urogynecology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; ‡‡Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL; §§Center for Female Pelvic Surgery, Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, OH; ∥∥Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Allentown, PA; and ¶¶Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL.

Published: January 2016

Objectives: Rectovaginal fistulae (RVFs) are often debilitating and there are no established treatment algorithms. We sought to describe current diagnosis and management strategies for RVFs across the United States.

Methods: This institutional review board-approved multicenter retrospective study included 12 sites. Cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes during a 5-year period. Demographics, management, and outcomes of RVF treatment were collected.

Results: Three hundred forty-two charts were identified; 176 (52%) met criteria for inclusion. The mean (SD) age was 45 (17) years. Medical history included hypertension (21%), cancer (17%), Crohn disease (11%), and diabetes (7%). Rectovaginal fistulae were often associated with obstetric trauma (42%), infection/inflammation (24%), and cancer (11%). Overall, most RVFs were primary (94%), small (0.5-1.5 cm; 49%), transsphincteric (31%), and diagnosed via vaginal and rectal (60%) examination. Eighteen percent (32/176) were initially managed conservatively for a median duration of 56 days (interquartile range, 29-168) and 66% (21/32) of these resolved. Almost half (45%) of RVFs treated expectantly were tiny (<0.5 cm). Eighty-two percent (144/176) of subjects were initially managed surgically and 81% (117/144) resolved. Procedures included simple fistulectomy with or without Martius graft (59%), transsphincteric repair (23%), transverse transperineal repair (10%), and open techniques (8%), and 87% of these procedures were performed by urogynecologists.

Conclusions: In this large retrospective review, most primary RVFs were treated surgically, with a success rate of more than 80%. Two thirds of RVFs managed conservatively resolved spontaneously, and most of these were tiny (<0.5 cm). These success rates can be used in counseling to help our patients make informed decisions about their treatment options.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4994526PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000162DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rectovaginal fistulae
12
practice patterns
4
patterns management
4
management rectovaginal
4
fistulae multicenter
4
multicenter review
4
review fellows'
4
fellows' pelvic
4
pelvic network
4
network objectives
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!