Comparison of sterile normal saline and 1% povidone-iodine for vaginal preparation in vesicovaginal fistula: a randomised trial.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1080/01443615.2024.2439356
Xinyan Che, Mingjian Ruan, Yang Yang, Zhijun Xi, Yanbo Huang, Wei Wang, Lijun Zhong, Kaiyue Chen, Yuke Chen, Shiliang Wu
{"title":"Comparison of sterile normal saline and 1% povidone-iodine for vaginal preparation in vesicovaginal fistula: a randomised trial.","authors":"Xinyan Che, Mingjian Ruan, Yang Yang, Zhijun Xi, Yanbo Huang, Wei Wang, Lijun Zhong, Kaiyue Chen, Yuke Chen, Shiliang Wu","doi":"10.1080/01443615.2024.2439356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaginal preparation before transvaginal gynecological surgeries improves the success rate. However, there is no consensus on which agent is superior for transvaginal repair of vesicovaginal fistula (VVF). We aimed to compare irritation symptoms and antimicrobial function between sterile normal saline (SS) and 1% povidone-iodine (PI) for vaginal preparation in surgical repair of VVF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomised, controlled trial was conducted on patients with VVF underwent transvaginal repair. Preoperative vaginal irrigation was randomly performed with either SS or 1% PI. The patients' self-reported symptoms questionnaires, including numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain, Indevus urgency severity scale (IUSS), and vaginal symptoms, tissue edoema degree and pathogenic microbiology were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 30 patients in the SS group and 31 patients in the PI group. After twice irrigations before surgery, compared with the PI group, the SS group had a similar count of bacterial species but a higher bacterial load (<i>p</i> = .079 and <i>p</i> = .033). The NRS of pain and IUSS in the SS group were lower than those in the PI group (<i>p</i> < .001). The SS group had less severe vaginal symptoms (<i>p</i> < .001) and tissue edoema (<i>p</i> < .001) than the PI group. The successful repair rates were 86.7% in the SS group and 83.9% in the PI group (<i>p</i> = .758). Patients with more severe urinary and vaginal symptoms had lower successful repair rates (92.3% vs. 72.7%, <i>p</i> = .047).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SS is an effective vaginal preparation liquid for transvaginal repair of VVF with less irritation symptoms and acceptable antimicrobial function.</p>","PeriodicalId":16627,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"45 1","pages":"2439356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2024.2439356","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vaginal preparation before transvaginal gynecological surgeries improves the success rate. However, there is no consensus on which agent is superior for transvaginal repair of vesicovaginal fistula (VVF). We aimed to compare irritation symptoms and antimicrobial function between sterile normal saline (SS) and 1% povidone-iodine (PI) for vaginal preparation in surgical repair of VVF.

Methods: This randomised, controlled trial was conducted on patients with VVF underwent transvaginal repair. Preoperative vaginal irrigation was randomly performed with either SS or 1% PI. The patients' self-reported symptoms questionnaires, including numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain, Indevus urgency severity scale (IUSS), and vaginal symptoms, tissue edoema degree and pathogenic microbiology were recorded.

Results: The study included 30 patients in the SS group and 31 patients in the PI group. After twice irrigations before surgery, compared with the PI group, the SS group had a similar count of bacterial species but a higher bacterial load (p = .079 and p = .033). The NRS of pain and IUSS in the SS group were lower than those in the PI group (p < .001). The SS group had less severe vaginal symptoms (p < .001) and tissue edoema (p < .001) than the PI group. The successful repair rates were 86.7% in the SS group and 83.9% in the PI group (p = .758). Patients with more severe urinary and vaginal symptoms had lower successful repair rates (92.3% vs. 72.7%, p = .047).

Conclusions: SS is an effective vaginal preparation liquid for transvaginal repair of VVF with less irritation symptoms and acceptable antimicrobial function.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
398
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology represents an established forum for the entire field of obstetrics and gynaecology, publishing a broad range of original, peer-reviewed papers, from scientific and clinical research to reviews relevant to practice. It also includes occasional supplements on clinical symposia. The journal is read widely by trainees in our specialty and we acknowledge a major role in education in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Past and present editors have recognized the difficulties that junior doctors encounter in achieving their first publications and spend time advising authors during their initial attempts at submission. The journal continues to attract a world-wide readership thanks to the emphasis on practical applicability and its excellent record of drawing on an international base of authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信