Stapled transperineal repair for low- and mid-level rectovaginal fistulas: A 5-year experience and comparison with sutured repair

Table 3 Univariate analysis of risk factors for fistula recurrence

Variable	Recurrent RVF	Non-recurrent RVF	P value
Age, yr, n (%)			0.655
< 60	22 (95.65)	55 (93.33)
≥ 60	1 (4.35)	4 (6.78)
Aetiology, n (%)			0.203
Congenital	6 (26.09)	12 (20.34)
Obstetrical	7 (30.43)	32 (54.24)
Secondary to surgery	10 (43.48)	14 (23.73)
Other	0 (0)	1 (1.69)
Fistula duration time, mo, n (%)			0.289
< 24	14 (60.87)	29 (49.15)
≥ 24	9 (39.13)	30 (50.85)
Previous repair history, n (%)			0.037
0	12 (52.13)	45 (76.27)
≥ 1	11 (47.83)	14 (23.73)
Fistula location, n (%)			0.804
Low-level	15 (65.22)	40 (67.8)
Mid-level	8 (34.78)	19 (32.2)
Diameter of fistula, cm, n (%)			0.039
< 0.5	3 (13.04)	22 (37.29)
≥ 0.5	20 (86.96)	37 (62.71)
Stoma, n (%)			0.068
Yes	17 (73.91)	53 (89.83)
No	6 (26.09)	6 (10.17)
Surgical approach, n (%)			0.002
Conventional suture repair	17 (73.91)	20 (33.9)
Stapled repair	6 (26.09)	39 (66.1)
Preoperative wexner score, n (%)			0.031
< 10	15 (65.22)	51 (86.44)
≥ 10	8 (34.78)	8 (13.56)

RVF: Rectovaginal fistula.