Background Rectovaginal fistula (RVF) is a unique complication for women after rectal cancer surgery (RCS). Understanding its incidence and risk factors can help further recognize and prevent the disease. Although there have been studies on the risk factors for RVF after RCS, the results show some heterogeneity and even contradictory conclusions due to differences in trial design, sample size, study population, and treatment methods, etc. However, no relevant meta-analyses have been found to date. This study aims to investigate the incidence and risk factors of RVF after RCS through a meta-analysis.

Methods A systematic literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the establishment of the database to June 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was performed using R Studio 4.3.2 software.

Results A total of 1 randomized controlled study and 7 non-randomized controlled studies were included, involving 4920 patients, among which 134 cases had RVF. The meta-analysis results showed that the incidence of RVF after RCS was 3.2% (95%CI: 1.9% ∼ 7.8%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy,tumors in lower position,longer surgery duration and double-stapled technique were risk factors for the occurrence of RVF after RCS. Laparoscopic technique was a protective factor for RVF after RCS. T4 stage,age,diabetes,ASA anesthesia classification, Prior hysterectomy, Combined pelvic organ resection, and vaginectomy had no significant effect on RVF.

Conclusion The incidence of RVF after RCS is higher than the general cognition, which should be paid attention to by surgeons. The results of this study may help surgeons identify high-risk inpatients in time, take corresponding measures in advance, and expect to reduce the incidence of the disease.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Yes

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study is a meta-analysis. All data are from published literature. The original data are public and do not require ethical or other institutional approval.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

My paper is a meta-analysis, all the data are from published literature, and all the data are public.