Vesico-Vaginal Fistula: Nature and Evidence-Based Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment.

: The present review aims to analyze the current information available on the pathophysiology, clinical presentation and treatment of vesico-vaginal fistulas (VVF), with particular focus on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques. Through the use of the PubMed and Google Scholar databases, we conducted a literature review of all available studies related to MIS treatment of VVF, focusing on laparoscopic techniques. After abstracts were read to identify pertinent studies, full manuscripts were reviewed by two authors according to the aim of the review. Vesico-vaginal fistula is defined as an abnormal passage that connects the bladder to the vagina and affects over 3 million women worldwide. It can be classified according to its complexity (simple or complex) and mechanism (obstetric-related or iatrogenic). Laparoscopic treatment of VVF started in 1994 and is currently the gold-standard approach for this pathology. No differences in terms of efficacy or safety have been reported between MIS (laparoscopy, robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopic single-site) using extra-vesical and trans-vesical approaches, with success rates of 80% to 100%, and low rates of conversion (1.9%), recurrence (less than 1%) and intra- or post-operative complications (3%). Surgical principles for fistula repair, described independently by Angioli and Couvelaire, must always be followed. A bladder fill and integrity test with at least 300 mL should be performed before ending surgery, since this increases the success rate by about 6%. Other interventions such as flap interposition, number of layers in closure and expectant management (spontaneous closure with a Foley catheter alone) remain controversial. To date, no differences have been seen among the laparoscopic surgical techniques. The lack of prospective evaluations has hindered a better understanding of the natural history of the disease and the development of evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnosis, management and follow-up. Since no differences were found compared to a trans-vesical approach, extra-vesical repair is recommended to avoid bladder bi-valving.