CASE REPORT: A case of ureterovaginal fistula associated with a neglected vaginal foreign body. The patient was complaining of a foul-smelling vaginal discharge and lower abdominal pain. On vaginal examination, a hard and large foreign body was found. Examination under anesthesia was performed, and an aerosol cap was removed from her vagina. The patient developed urinary incontinence after removal of the foreign body. Subsequent work-up demonstrated the presence of a right ureterovaginal fistula. The patient underwent an abdominal ureteroneocystostomy. At one year follow up, the patient had fully recovered.
CONCLUSION: Ureterovaginal fistula following neglected vaginal foreign body is a serious condition. Early diagnosis, treatment of infection and proper surgical management can improve the outcome and decrease complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A case of anterior vaginal wall mass was treated elsewhere by a gynecologist as periurethral cyst abscess; incision and drainage were done but a symptom of pus discharge was observed after 2 weeks. Therefore, exploration, cyst wall excision and primary closure were done though histopathological examination surprisingly confirmed the presence of urethral tissue suggestive of diverticulum.
RESULTS: Subsequently, she developed persistent urinary leakage along with urethrovaginal fistula for which they again performed pervaginal multilayer closure. Patient was later referred to us with recurrent urethrovaginal fistula. We performed posterior urethral fistulectomy with anterior vaginal wall flap and multilayer closure. Three years follow up reveals complete recovery.
CONCLUSION: Even urethral diverticulum is a rare condition, should be kept in mind as early diagnosis and management.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of various interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (whole database, to 3 July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 3 July 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 3 July 2015), US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) (whole database, to 3 July 2015) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) (whole database, to 3 July 2015). We also searched the reference lists of included and excluded trials for any randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs evaluating any intervention for treating oro-antral communications or oro-antral fistulae due to dental procedures. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We excluded studies on participants who had oro-antral communications, fistulae or both related to Caldwell-Luc procedure or surgical excision of tumours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials. Two review authors assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data independently. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included only one study in this review, which compared two surgical interventions: pedicled buccal fat pad flap and buccal flap for the treatment of oro-antral communications. The study involved 20 participants. The risk of bias was unclear. The relevant outcome reported in this trial was successful (complete) closure of oro-antral communication.The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was very low. The study did not find evidence of a difference between interventions for the successful (complete) closure of an oro-antral communication (RR 1.00, 95% Cl 0.83 to 1.20) one month after the surgery. All oro-antral communications in both groups were successfully closed so there were no adverse effects due to treatment failure.We did not find trials evaluating any other intervention for treating oro-antral communications or fistulae due to dental procedures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence from a single small study that compared pedicled buccal fat pad and buccal flap. The evidence was insufficient to judge whether there is a difference in the effectiveness of these interventions as all oro-antral communications in the study were successfully closed by one month after surgery. Large, well-conducted RCTs investigating different interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae caused by dental procedures are needed to inform clinical practice.