Rectovaginal Fistulas: Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Assisted Pullthrough and Posterior Sagittal Anorectoplasty

Abstract

AimCompare the laparoscopic treatment (LT) and the posterior sagittal anorectoplasty treatment (ST) of the rectovaginal fistulas (RvaF) in a single center. We have previously reported feasibility and results of LT in this rare variety of anorectal malformations (ARM) [1–3]. Material and methods19 patients were treated between February 2000 and November 2020. Nine underwent a LT and 10 a ST. Both surgical techniques were previously described. [2][4][5] The distal posterior wall of the vagina was kept intact in the LT. A technical change was introduced in the ST for that purpose. The fistula was treated from the inside of the rectum, avoiding the opening of the distal vagina as described for the treatment of a urethra rectal bulbar fistula in males. Age at operation, associated anomalies, sacral ratio index (SR), complications, urinary continence, presence of spontaneous intestinal movements, constipation, soiling and requirements of bowel management program (BMP) were analyzed. ResultsAssociated anomalies occurred in 17 patients (89.5 %), 63 % of which were urological. Five (26 %) had a SR below 0.4; 4 in the LT group and 1 in the ST group. The mean age at the time of operation was 23.2 (8–59) in ST and 17.6 months (4–32) in LT. Average operative time was 190.4 min for ST (120–334) and 195.8 min (90–270) for LT (p 0.13). One patient in the LT group presented a mild rectal prolapse and 2 a partial wound dehiscence after the ST. Only 15 patients were evaluable for functional results (8 in ST and 7 in LT). Mean follow up was 83 months (12–197). All patients are clean with a bowel management program. Five of the 7 patients undergoing a LT had a bad prognosis (SR < 0,4). Three (43 %) are clean with diet or any treatment, 3 (43 %) using laxatives or enemas and 1 (14 %) with a trans anal irrigation system. Only 1 of the 8 patients in the STgroup had a bad prognosis. Six (40 %) needed a diet; 4 (50 %) laxatives or enemas and 1 (10 %) a cecostomy button for antegrade enemas. ConclusionsPatients with RvaF had a high index of associated anomalies. The difference of operative time was not statistically significative. No differences in functional results between both groups were observed. LT is a valid option to treat RvaF.