IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women who underwent repair in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Habtamu Endashaw Hareru
  • Zemachu Ashuro
  • Berhanu Gidisa Debela
  • Mesfin Abebe

Abstract

Background: Obstetric fistula repair failure can result in increased depression, social isolation, financial burden for the woman, and fistula care programs. However, there is limited, comprehensive evidence on obstetric fistula repair failure in Sub-Saharan African countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of obstetric fistula repair failure and associated factors among women who underwent surgical repair in Sub-Saharan African countries. Methods: To identify potential articles, a systematic search was done utilizing online databases (PubMed, Hinari, and Google Scholar). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement (PRISMA) guideline was used to report the review’s findings. I2 test statistics were employed to examine study heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used to assess the pooled prevalence of obstetric fistula repair failure, and the association was determined using the log odds ratio. Publication bias was investigated using the funnel plot and Egger’s statistical test at the 5% level of significance. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were done to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. The data were analyzed using STATA version 17 statistical software. Results: A total of 24 articles with 9866 study participants from 13 Sub-Saharan African countries were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of obstetric fistula repair failure in sub-Saharan Africa was 24.92% [95% CI: 20.34–29.50%]. The sub-group analysis by country revealed that the highest prevalence was in Angola (58%, 95% CI: 53.20–62.80%) and the lowest in Rwanda (13.9, 95% CI: 9.79–18.01%). Total urethral damage [OR = 3.50, 95% CI: 2.09, 4.91], large fistula [OR = 3.09, 95% CI: (2.00, 4.10)], duration of labor [OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.76], and previous fistula repair [OR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.94, 3.45] were factors associated with obstetric fistula repair failure. Conclusion: Women who received surgical treatment for obstetric fistulas in Sub-Saharan African countries experienced more repair failures than the WHO standards. Obstetric fistula repair failure was affected by urethral damage, fistula size, duration of labor, types of fistula, and history of previous repairs. Therefore, we suggest policy measures specific to each country to provide special attention to the prevention of all risk factors, including poor nutrition, multiparty, obstructed labor, and maternal age, which can result in conditions like large fistulas, urethral damage, and repeat repair, in order to reduce obstetric fistula repair failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Habtamu Endashaw Hareru & Zemachu Ashuro & Berhanu Gidisa Debela & Mesfin Abebe, 2024. "Obstetric fistula repair failure and its associated factors among women who underwent repair in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-24, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295000
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295000
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295000&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295000. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.