[Diagnostic and therapeutic concepts for vesicovaginal and ureterovaginal fistulas].

BACKGROUND: Vesico- and ureterovaginal fistulas are defined as abnormal connections between the urinary tract, on the one side, and the female genital system, on the other. Despite being highly prevalent as an acquired pathology of the urogenital system, there has as yet been no standardized protocol in place for diagnosing and treating these fistulas. This review analyses the current literature concerning vesico- and ureterovaginal fistulas in order to profile common diagnostic and therapeutic concepts.

METHODS: Literature research was carried out using the data bases of Medline and PubMed. A general internet research was added as well as the subsequent analysis of textbooks. Subsequently 40 scientific publications, four textbooks and one internet source were consulted.

RESULTS: In the diagnostic process of not only vesicovaginal, but also ureterovaginal fistulas a timely vaginal examination followed by a cystoscopy and further imaging by retrograde vaginal methylene blue instillation should be carried out. In order to further the differential diagnosis of ureterovaginal fistulas in particular, additional imaging techniques may be required. However, the therapies of both fistulas manifest essential differences. Ureterovaginal fistulas are closed in a two-stage procedure. At first, a percutaneous nephrostomy is placed to decompress the renal collecting system and further drain the urine, followed by a second intervention, which closes the fistula. The management of vesicovaginal fistulas includes both conservative and surgical concepts, the latter of which may in turn be divided into a transabdominal and/or a transvaginal approach. Essentially, transabdominal fistula surgery should, at first, include the identification of the orifices of both ureters to subsequently splint them as indicated. This should be followed by the excision of the fistula. In the case of large fistulas a flap reconstruction of the area may be considered after the mobilisation of the surrounding tissue. Despite almost all surgical techniques leading to successful outcomes, patients with radiogenic damage to the area might require an alternative form of urinary drainage.

CONCLUSIONS: Industrial and developing countries continue to display significant differences in the etiology of fistulas as well as the operative treatment. The therapeutic concepts in place exhibit high success rates irrespecitve of the surgical approach and should be individually developed in accordance with the etiology, location and size of the fistula as well as the condition of the surrounding tissue.