The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries

Cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy versus surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised non-inferiority controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy as an initial treatment option compared with surgery for moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms in secondary care from a healthcare and a societal perspective.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 24-month follow-up.

SETTING

21 hospitals in the Netherlands, recruitment conducted between 2015 and 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

1605 women referred to secondary care with symptomatic prolapse stage ≥2 were requested to participate. Of them, 440 women gave informed consent and were randomised to pessary therapy (n=218) or to surgery (n=222) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

Pessary therapy and surgery.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), a 7-point scale dichotomised into successful versus unsuccessful, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-3L; healthcare and societal costs were based on medical records and the institute for Medical Technology Assessment questionnaires.

RESULTS

For the PGI-I, the mean difference between pessary therapy and surgery was -0.05 (95% CI -0.14; 0.03) and -0.03 (95% CI -0.07; 0.002) for QALYs. In total, 54.1% women randomised to pessary therapy crossed over to surgery, and 3.6% underwent recurrent surgery. Healthcare and societal costs were significantly lower in the pessary therapy (mean difference=-€1807, 95% CI -€2172; -€1446 and mean difference=-€1850, 95% CI -€2349; -€1341, respectively). The probability that pessary therapy is cost-effective compared with surgery was 1 at willingness-to-pay thresholds between €0 and €20 000/QALY gained from both perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of pessary therapy regarding the PGI-I could not be shown and no statistically significant differences in QALYs between interventions were found. Due to significantly lower costs, pessary therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with surgery as an initial treatment option for women with symptomatic POP treated in secondary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4883.

The Impact of Vaginal Probiotics on Pessary Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE

Pessary-related adverse effects are common, and treatment options are limited. Probiotics may improve pessary-related adverse effects by altering the vaginal microenvironment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a vaginal probiotic suppository on the vaginal microenvironment among pessary users.

STUDY DESIGN

Women who used pessaries were randomized to vaginal probiotic suppository use versus without use. The intervention was a vaginal probiotic suppository and moisturizing vaginal gel. The vaginal microenvironment was assessed using Gram stain and Nugent's criteria at baseline and 3 months by a microbiologist blinded to group allocation. Symptoms and experience with use of the probiotic were assessed using questionnaires. The primary outcome was change in lactobacilli count on Nugent subscore at 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 147 postmenopausal women were randomized (86 to the intervention arm and 61 to the control arm), and 124 (87.9%) presented for a 3-month follow-up. There was no difference between the arms in age, race, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. A majority of participants had the pessary managed by the health care professional (intervention arm vs control arm, 46 [76.7%] vs 55 [68.8%]; P = 0.30). Composition of the vaginal microenvironment did not differ with or without probiotic treatment at 3 months. Bother from vaginal symptoms, including discharge, itching, and discomfort, did not differ between arms. Adverse effects from the intervention were minor, resolved with discontinuation, and occurred at 39.1%.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal probiotic suppository use did not affect the composition of the vaginal microenvironment, patient satisfaction, or vaginal symptoms after 3 months of use in pessary users.

Posterior compartment prolapse and perineal descent: systematic review of available support devices

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to systematically review the literature about available devices facilitating perineal support during defecation in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) and posterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

We searched for the terms "defecat/ion or ODS" and" pessar/ies or device/aid/tool/perineal/perianal/prolapse and support" in MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science. Data abstraction was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. A two-stage inclusion was performed, selecting first on title and abstract and secondly the full text. For variables with sufficient data, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Other variables were descriptively reported.

RESULTS

Ten studies out of 1332 were included for systematic review. The devices could be categorized into three groups: pessaries (n = 8), vaginal stent (n = 1) and external support device (n = 1). Methodology and data reporting is heterogeneous. Meta-analysis could be performed for the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and Impact Questionnaire (CRAI-Q-7) in three pessary studies which showed a significant mean change. Significant improvement of stool evacuation was seen in two other pessary studies. The vaginal stent significantly decreases ODS. Subjective perception of constipation improved significantly using the posterior perineal support device.

CONCLUSION

All reviewed devices seem to improve ODS in patients with POP. There are no data on their efficacy with regard to perineal descent-associated ODS. There is a lack of comparative studies between devices. Studies are difficult to compare due to different inclusion criteria and evaluation tools.

Patient-Specific Pessaries for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Three-Dimensional Printing: A Pilot Study

IMPORTANCE

Vaginal pessaries are an effective nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when properly fitted. However, pessary fitting and use are often unsuccessful or imperfect.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of using patient-specific pessaries fabricated from three-dimensional (3D)-printed molds to improve POP symptoms and increase overall satisfaction of pessary treatment in patients using standard vaginal pessaries.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing POP treatment with standard vaginal pessaries were enrolled in this pilot prospective study. Patient-specific pessaries were designed and fabricated for each patient using patient input, physician input, and anatomic measurements from clinical assessment. Pessary fabrication involved injection of biocompatible liquid silicone rubber into 3D-printed molds followed by a biocompatible silicone coating. Pelvic organ prolapse symptomatic distress and pessary treatment satisfaction were evaluated before and after a 3-week patient-specific pessary home trial using the validated Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 form and a visual analog scale, respectively.

RESULTS

Eight women were included in this study. Changing from standard pessary to patient-specific pessary treatment was associated with an improvement in prolapse symptoms on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (median change, -3.5; interquartile range, -5 to -2.5; P = 0.02) and an increase in overall pessary satisfaction on a visual analog scale (median change, +2.0; interquartile range, +1.0 to +3.0; P = 0.02). All patients reported either an improvement or no change in pessary ease of use, comfort, and the feeling of support provided by the pessary.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific vaginal pessaries are a promising alternative to standard pessaries for alleviating POP symptoms and improving patient satisfaction with pessary use.

Complications of Pessaries Amenable to Surgical Correction: Two Case Reports and a Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Forty percent of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime. Vaginal pessaries are considered the first line of treatment in selected patients. Major complications of vaginal pessaries rarely occur.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched from 1961 to 2022 for major complications of vaginal pessaries using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms. The keywords were pessary or pessaries and: vaginal discharge, incontinence, entrapment, urinary infections, fistula, complications, and vaginal infection. The exclusion criteria were other languages than English, pregnancy, complications without a prior history of pessary placement, pessaries unregistered for clinical practice (herbal pessaries), or male patients. The extracted data included symptoms, findings upon examination, infection, type of complication, extragenital symptoms, and treatment.

RESULTS

We identified 1874 abstracts and full text articles; 54 were assessed for eligibility and 49 met the inclusion criteria. These 49 studies included data from 66 patients with pessary complications amenable to surgical correction. Clavien-Dindo classification was used to grade the complications. Most patients presented with vaginal symptoms such as bleeding, discharge, or ulceration. The most frequent complications were pessary incarceration and fistulas. Surgical treatment included removal of the pessary under local or general anesthesia, fistula repair, hysterectomy and vaginal repair, and the management of bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Pessaries are a reasonable and durable treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Complications are rare. Routine follow-ups are necessary. The ideal patient candidate must be able to remove and reintroduce their pessary on a regular basis; if not, this must be performed by a healthcare worker at regular intervals.

Effect of Pessary vs Surgery on Patient-Reported Improvement in Patients With Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Pelvic organ prolapse is a prevalent condition among women that negatively affects their quality of life. With increasing life expectancy, the global need for cost-effective care for women with pelvic organ prolapse will continue to increase.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether treatment with a pessary is noninferior to surgery among patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The PEOPLE project was a noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 21 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 1605 women with symptomatic stage 2 or greater pelvic organ prolapse were requested to participate between March 2015 through November 2019; 440 gave informed consent. Final 24-month follow-up ended at June 30, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Two hundred eighteen participants were randomized to receive pessary treatment and 222 to surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was subjective patient-reported improvement at 24 months, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale, a 7-point Likert scale ranging from very much better to very much worse. This scale was dichotomized as successful, defined as much better or very much better, vs nonsuccessful treatment. The noninferiority margin was set at 10 percentage points risk difference. Data of crossover between therapies and adverse events were captured.

RESULTS

Among 440 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [9.29] years), 173 (79.3%) in the pessary group and 162 (73.3%) in the surgery group completed the trial at 24 months. In the population, analyzed as randomized, subjective improvement was reported by 132 of 173 (76.3%) in the pessary group vs 132 of 162 (81.5%) in the surgery group (risk difference, -6.1% [1-sided 95% CI, -12.7 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority, .16). The per-protocol analysis showed a similar result for subjective improvement with 52 of 74 (70.3%) in the pessary group vs 125 of 150 (83.3%) in the surgery group (risk difference, -13.1% [1-sided 95% CI, -23.0 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority, .69). Crossover from pessary to surgery occurred among 118 of 218 (54.1%) participants. The most common adverse event among pessary users was discomfort (42.7%) vs urinary tract infection (9%) following surgery.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse, an initial strategy of pessary therapy, compared with surgery, did not meet criteria for noninferiority with regard to patient-reported improvement at 24 months. Interpretation is limited by loss to follow-up and the large amount of participant crossover from pessary therapy to surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR4883.

Role of Pessaries in the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the existing evidence on the efficacy of pessaries in improving quality of life when used for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DATA SOURCES

We searched for the terms "pelvic organ prolapse" and "pessar/y/ies/ium or vaginal support device," and "safety or safe or outcome or complication or efficacy or effective or effectiveness" in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL on March 16, 2020. A search was also performed on ClinicalTrials.gov , with no studies fitting our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Studies that reported pretreatment and posttreatment mean scores and SDs after pessary treatment for standardized questionnaires were included. Studies performed in pediatric populations, pregnancy, and use of pessaries not for prolapse were excluded. Three reviewers independently screened studies.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data abstraction was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Data were pooled for meta-analysis when reported by at least three studies. The primary study outcome was change in mean pretreatment and posttreatment questionnaire scores, which included those for the PFDI-20 (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory- Short Form 20), PFIQ-7 (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire - Short Form 7), and subscale POPIQ (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire Long Form). A random-effects model was used to combine estimates and capture between-study heterogeneity using the I 2 -statistic. Eight studies including 627 patients were included for systematic review. The mean (SD) age was 63.0±12.2 years, and the majority of patients had stage III prolapse (48.1%) followed by stage II prolapse (43.2%) when reported. Although variable, the majority of studies conducted 3-month follow-up. A negative change in pretreatment and posttreatment scores was noted, signifying improvement after pessary use: PFDI-20 mean change -46.1 (95% CI -65.4 to -26.8); PFIQ-7 mean change -36.0 (95% CI -46.0 to -26.0); POPIQ-7 (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire-7) mean change -16.3 (95% CI -26.8 to -5.7). No significant heterogeneity was found.

CONCLUSION

Based on improvements in standardized questionnaire scores, pessaries are effective treatment options for POP.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020172618.

Position and orientation of vaginal pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that there are differences in the position and orientation of ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study comparing MRI findings in 25 women with pessaries in situ at the time of imaging. Scanner coordinates for anatomic and pessary landmarks were obtained and transformed to 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System coordinates using MATLAB software. The normal vector to the pessary disc was computed and compared to the positive y-axis in the sagittal and coronal planes to determine XY and YZ disc angles, respectively. Comparisons between groups were made using Wilcoxon rank, Fisher's exact, and Brown-Forsythe tests.

RESULTS

Twenty-one women with ring pessaries and four women with Gellhorn pessaries met inclusion criteria for the study. Women with ring pessaries were younger (68.4 vs. 80.7 years, p = 0.003) but had similar BMI, vaginal parity, history of hysterectomy, and anatomic characteristics. Ring pessaries had a smaller diameter (59.5 vs. 79.3 mm, p = 0.004) and were positioned further posterior with respect to the inferior pubic point (midpoint X position 42.6 vs. 29.5 mm, p = 0.004). There were significant differences in the magnitude and variance of the XY disc angle (57.0 ± 14.0 vs. -1.2 ± 2.8 degrees, p = 0.002 for magnitude, p = 0.012 for variance) but not the YZ disc angle (3.3 ± 30.6 vs. 1.5 ± 7.7 degrees, p > 0.05 for both) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We found differences in the position and orientation between ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ using an anatomic 3D reference system. These findings provide insight into the mechanism of action of vaginal pessaries.

Female Sexual Functioning in Women With a Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse; A Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study Between Pessary and Surgery

BACKGROUND

Female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has a negative effect on female sexual functioning and with an increasing life expectancy female sexual dysfunction caused by POP will be an arising global issue.

AIM

Improvement in female sexual functioning, measured with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), 24-months after pessary or surgery, for both sexually active (SA) and sexually inactive women (NSA) presenting with POP.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective comparative cohort study was conducted in 22 Dutch hospitals. Women referred with moderate to severe POP symptoms and POP stage ≥ 2 were included and chose either pessary therapy or surgical intervention. The PISQ-IR was filled in at baseline and 24-months, the delta of change was calculated and compared between both groups. Multivariate linear regression was performed to adjust for potential confounding factors in the association between the summary score of the PISQ-IR and therapy.

OUTCOMES

Change in PISQ-IR between pessary and surgical intervention.

RESULTS

The delta of change at 24-months was calculated for 198 women in the pessary group and 129 women in the surgery group. SA women in the surgery group reported statistically significant more improvement on the condition-specific (-0.19 95%CI -0.35; -0.03, P = .02), and condition-impact (-0.48 95%CI -0.69; -0.28, P < .001) domains as well as on the summary score (-0.15 95%CI -0.23; -0.08, P < .001) as compared to the pessary group. No significant differences between pessary and surgery were found on the domains for NSA women. After controlling for potential baseline confounders, surgery still had a statistically significant effect on the summary score (B = 0.08; 95%CI interval 0.007-0.15, P = .03). Women having surgery had 2.62 times higher odds of changing from NSA to SA than pessary therapy.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

SA women who clearly express that POP-related symptoms limit their sexual functioning should be counseled that surgery results in a more remarkable improvement.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

Our strengths include the large sample size, long-term follow-up, the use of the PISQ-IR as a validated outcome tool evaluating both SA and NSA women, and this study reflects real-life clinical practice that enhances the external validity of the findings. A limitation of our study is the considerable proportion of non-responders at 24-months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Sexual function in SA women with POP is superior in case surgery is performed as compared to pessary therapy. van der Vaart LR, Vollebregt A, Pruijssers B, et al. Female Sexual Functioning in Women With a Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse; A Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study Between Pessary and Surgery. J Sex Med 2022;19:270-279.

Parameters associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting for pelvic organ prolapse up to three months follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To clarify which parameters are associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) at up to 3 months follow-up.

Methods

Embase, PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL library were searched in May 2020. Inclusion criteria were: (1) pessary fitting attempted in women with symptomatic POP; (2) pessary fitting success among the study outcomes with a maximal follow-up of 3 months; (3) baseline parameters compared between successful and unsuccessful group. A meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

Main results

Twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. Parameters associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting were: age (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56–0.86); BMI (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08–1.70); menopause (OR 0.65 95% CI 0.47–0.88); de novo stress urinary incontinence (OR 5.59, 95% CI 2.24–13.99); prior surgery, i.e. hysterectomy (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.48–2.40), POP surgery (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.34–3.38), pelvic surgery (OR 1.81, 05% CI 1.01–3.26) and incontinence surgery (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.08–3.25); Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory-8 scores (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.22–3.02); solitary predominant posterior compartment POP (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08–2.35); total vaginal length (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32–0.97); wide introitus (OR 4.85, 95% CI 1.60–14.68); levator ani avulsion (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.35–4.53) and hiatal area on maximum Valsalva (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.27–2.80).

Conclusion

During counselling for pessary treatment a higher risk of failure due to the aforementioned parameters should be discussed and modifiable parameters should be addressed. More research is needed on the association between anatomical parameters and specific reasons for unsuccessful pessary fitting.

Comparison of outcomes between pessary use and surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: A prospective self-controlled study

Purpose

We compared the degree of pelvic floor symptom improvement between pessary use and prolapse surgery.

Materials and Methods

Pessary-naïve women who elected prolapse surgery were enrolled and used a pessary preoperatively (for ≥7 days and ≤30 days). Pelvic floor symptoms were assessed at baseline, after pessary use, and at 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was concordance in the degree of symptoms improvement between pessary use and surgery, as assessed by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Secondary outcomes were related to prolapse specific symptoms on validated questionnaires (POPDI-6, PFIQ-7). The McNemar test was used for comparisons of discordant pairs for comparisons of the PGI-I ratings after pessary use and surgery.

Results

Sixty-one participants were enrolled (March 2016 through April 2019) and 58 patients used a pessary. Mean±standard deviation age was 60.7±10.7 years; 24.1% had prior hysterectomy, and 13.8% had prior prolapse surgery. While both treatments demonstrated symptomatic improvement, concordance in the degree of overall improvement on the PGI-I score was poor (n=40); responses significantly favored more improvement postoperatively (p<0.001). Pessary use and surgery were associated with significant improvements in prolapse symptoms from baseline on POPDI-6 (both p<0.001) and POPIQ-7 (pessary, p=0.002; surgery, p<0.001). The degree of improvement was larger postoperatively compared to post-pessary use on POPDI-6 (p<0.001) and PFIQ-7 (p=0.004).

Conclusions

Both pessary use and surgery significantly improved pelvic floor symptoms from baseline. However, concordance in degrees of improvement between these treatments was poor, with more favorable outcomes after surgery for prolapse symptoms.

Evaluation and Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common clinical entity that can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life secondary to symptoms of pelvic pressure, vaginal bulge, urinary and bowel dysfunction, or sexual dysfunction. It is highly prevalent, with roughly 13% of women undergoing surgery for prolapse in their lifetime. Vaginal prolapse is diagnosed by history and physical examination. Additional testing may be indicated for evaluation of bowel and bladder symptoms. On examination, prolapse can represent descent of the anterior vaginal wall, vaginal apex (cervix/uterus or vaginal cuff scar after hysterectomy), or posterior vaginal wall, although it represents a combination of these in many cases. Treatment options for POP include observation, pelvic floor physical therapy, pessary use, and surgery. In patients with asymptomatic POP, observation is typically used. In those not desiring or medically unfit for surgery, pessaries are an effective nonsurgical option. When it is indicated, surgery can be performed through transvaginal, laparoscopic/robotic, or open approaches, using either the patient's own tissue or mesh augmentation. Deciding between these is based on the compartments involved, extent of prolapse, medical and surgical comorbidities, differences in durability and risk between operations, and shared decision-making with the patient. Here, we review pertinent clinical considerations in the evaluation and management of POP.

Host inflammatory response in women with vaginal epithelial abnormalities after pessary use

BACKGROUND

Vaginal epithelial abnormalities (VEA) are a common complication associated with pessary use. The objective of this study was to determine if there is a host pro-inflammatory response associated with pessary use and VEA.

METHODS

Patients wearing pessaries for at least two weeks for the management of pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence were screened for eligibility. Vaginal swabs were collected from women with VEA (cases) and without VEA (controls). Cases were matched to controls in a 1:3 ratio. Cytokine analysis of the collected samples was performed using multiplex analysis to determine the concentrations of interleukin (IL)6, interferon alpha 2 (IFNα2), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) and IL1β. A cross-sectional analysis was performed, comparing vaginal cytokine concentrations in women with and without VEA.

RESULTS

We enrolled 211 patients in this analysis: 50 cases and 161 controls. The median concentrations (pg/mL) of the four cytokines for cases and controls respectively were; IL6: 6.7 (IQR <2.9 [the lower limit of detection, LLD]-14.2) and < 2.9 (LLD) (IQR <2.9 [LLD]-5.5), IFNα2: 8.2 (IQR 6.1-13.9) and 7.9 (IQR 3.9-13.6), TNFα: 15.2 (IQR 6.1-30.4) and 4.68 (IQR <2.3 [LLD]-16.3), IL1β 195.7 (IQR 54.5-388.6) and 38.5 (IQR 6.7-154.9). The differences in median cytokine levels were statistically higher in cases for IL6, TNFα, and IL1β (all p < 0.001) compared to controls. Older age (OR: 1.062, 95% CI, 1.015-1.112), lower BMI (OR: 0.910, 95% CI, 0.839-0.986) and presence of VEA at last check (OR: 5.377, 95% CI, 2.049-14.108) were associated with higher odds of having VEA on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Pro-inflammatory cytokines, specifically IL6, TNFα, and IL1β, are elevated in pessary-wearing patients who have VEA. Additional prospective studies are needed to assess baseline vaginal inflammatory profiles before and after pessary placement to understand VEA formation in pessary patients.

A predictive model of choosing pessary type for women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVE

To investigate clinical factors including translabial ultrasound parameters, which are predictive for choosing pessary type (Ring or Gellhorn) in the fitting trial, and to establish a predictive model.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on symptomatic women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) at the Pelvic Floor Disease Diagnosis and Treatment Center (Liaoning Province, China) between May 2018 and December 2020 who were successfully fitted with pessaries. This retrospective study was supplemented with a prospective cohort study on women seeking pessary for first-line treatment of POP at the above tertiary center between December 2020 and April 2021 for validation. Enrolled participants were grouped by their fitted type of pessary. Demographic and clinical parameters between groups, including pelvic organ prolapse quantification and translabial ultrasound, were analyzed using logistic regression. A receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using predictive values obtained by regression as the predictor for choosing pessary type in the pessary fitting trial.

RESULTS

The 181 participants included in the retrospective analysis were randomly divided into the "Development" and "Validation" datasets. In the "Development" set, multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that a younger age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.950; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.908-0.995; P = 0.026), a larger hiatal circumference on Valsalva (OR: 1.348; 95% CI: 1.103-1.647; P = 0.004), and a higher POP-Q stage (OR: 2.963; 95% CI: 1.210-7.255; P = 0.017) were independent predictors for successful fitting with the Gellhorn pessary. The predictive model was P = exp(Z)/[1 + exp(Z)], Z = -0.051 × Age (y) + 0.298 × hiatal circumference on Valsalva (cm) + 1.086 × pelvic organ prolapse stage (2, 3, or 4) - 5.490. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was 0.776 (P < 0.001) and 0.705 (P < 0.001) based on the "Development" dataset and "Validation" datasets, respectively. The AUC was 0.815 (P < 0.001) based on the prospective cohort validation.

CONCLUSIONS

For severe POP, women with younger age and larger hiatal circumference, Gellhorn pessaries should be their first choice instead of ring ones in pessary fitting trials.

Rectovaginal Fistula in Women With Pessary for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case Series and Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we present a series of 2 cases of rectovaginal fistula (RVF) due to the use of a ring-type pessary in the conservative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and a literature review on the management of RVF related to the use of pessaries.

METHODS

Two patients were selected from the medical records of the urogynecology service, and their demographic and clinical data were retrieved. An updated literature review was included presenting cases of RVF induced by or after use of a pessary.

RESULTS

Both patients evolved with removal of the pessary and correction of the fistula. The surgical procedures of choice were Le Fort Colpocleisis and posterior colporraphy without major complications. In the literature review, we selected 17 studies with a total of 23 cases reporting RVFs induced or followed by the use of pessaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the pessary is commonly indicated for the conservative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, this device is not exempt from generating complications.

Pessary or surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: the PEOPLE study, a multicentre prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 24-month efficacy of pessary or surgery as the primary treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective comparative cohort study.

SETTING

Twenty-two Dutch hospitals.

POPULATION

Women referred with symptomatic POP of stage ≥2 and moderate-to-severe POP symptoms.

METHODS

The primary outcome was subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up according to the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcomes included improvement in prolapse-related symptoms measured with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), improvement in subjective severeness of symptoms according to the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) scale and crossover between therapies. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of adverse events.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

PGI-I at 24 months.

RESULTS

We included 539 women, with 335 women (62.2%) in the pessary arm and 204 women (37.8%) in the surgery arm. After 24 months, subjective improvement was reported by 134 women (83.8%) in the surgery group compared with 180 women (74.4%) in the pessary group (risk difference 9.4%, 95% CI 1.4-17.3%, P < 0.01). Seventy-nine women (23.6%) switched from pessary to surgery and 22 women (10.8%) in the surgery group underwent additional treatment. Both groups showed a significant reduction in bothersome POP symptoms (P ≤ 0.01) and a reduction in the perceived severity of symptoms (P ≤ 0.001) compared with the baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly more women in the surgery group reported a subjective improvement after 24 months. Both therapies, however, showed a clinically significant improvement of prolapse symptoms.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pessary treatment and vaginal surgery are both efficacious in reducing the presence and severity of prolapse symptoms, although the chance of significant improvement is higher following surgery.

Adapting to Challenging Circumstances: Pessary Care in a Racially Diverse Urban Population Within a U.S. Epicenter of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives

The aim of the study was to describe time intervals between pessary maintenance visits in racially diverse women receiving care in a U.S. epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. We secondarily aimed to determine whether time interval between pessary changes is associated with adverse outcomes and to identify factors associated with adverse pessary outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of women undergoing pessary care after the COVID-19 pandemic began. Time between the most recent visit before the pandemic and first visit after the pandemic began was recorded. Pessary care data were collected from the latter visit, including vaginal bleeding, vaginal discharge, and erosion. Patient-reported symptoms and demographics were also recorded. The relationship between time interval between pessary visits and adverse outcomes as well as between adverse outcomes and demographic data was assessed.

Results

We identified 104 women undergoing pessary care, of which 35.6% were Hispanic and 32.7% were Black and 26.2% ± 10.5% lived in poverty. The median time to in-person visit was 4.5 months (interquartile range, 3.7–5.3 months). Seven women (8.7%) had vaginal bleeding, 15 (14.6%) had vaginal discharge, and 7 (6.8%) had erosions. There was no significant association between time interval between pessary visits and adverse outcomes or between adverse outcomes and patient characteristics (all P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Longer duration of time between pessary maintenance visits is not associated with increased adverse outcomes in this group of racially diverse women. Extended intervals between pessary visits can be considered to minimize risk and maintain patient safety during challenging circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire - IUGA Revised (PISQ-IR)

BACKGROUND

To put statistically significant changes in patient reported outcome measurement (PROM) questionnaires into a clinical perspective, the concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be used.

AIM

To determine the MCID for the summary score for sexually active (SA) women of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), a validated instrument which assesses sexual functioning (SF) for patients suffering from a symptomatic pelvic floor disorder.

METHODS

Patients participating in a multicentre prospective cohort study comparing pessary therapy with surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) filled in the PISQ-IR at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. We used both an anchor-based as well as a distribution-based method to calculate the MCID for both treatment groups. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire and PISQ-IR question 19a about satisfaction with sexual functioning were used as anchors. For the distribution-based approach we used the effect size (ES).

OUTCOMES

MCID for the SA summary score of the PISQ-IR.

RESULTS

Data of 243 women were used to calculate the MCID. In the pessary group, Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficients between the PISQ-IR summary score and both anchors were below the cut-off of 0.21, which implies the anchors cannot be used to calculate an MCID. In our surgery group, the PISQ-IR question 19a met the anchor criteria and 0.31 points increase in the PISQ-IR summary score was equal to an improvement of 1 point on question 19a about satisfaction with sexual functioning.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future research on this subject should focus on clinical relevance of results rather than statistical significance only.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

Our main strength is the fact that we used both anchor-based and distribution-based methods to determine our MCID. Secondly, we set out to determine an MCID for both treatment groups separately, which relatively enhances the generalisability of our results. A limitation is that we were not able to estimate an MCID for the pessary group. Pruijssers B, van der Vaart L, Milani F, et al. Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire - IUGA Revised (PISQ-IR). J Sex Med 2021;18:1265-1270.

CONCLUSION

We estimated the MCID for the PISQ-IR SA summary score to be 0.31 in our surgery group.

Can we predict continued pessary use as primary treatment in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP)? A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was creating a prediction model for continued pessary use in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and evaluating the percentage of continued pessary use after 12 months.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study in patients with symptomatic POP stage ≥ 2. All patients received a pessary as primary treatment. Factors for continuation were identified from baseline characteristics and data from validated disease-specific quality of life (DSQOL) questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate analyses for predictors were performed and a prediction model was made. Improvement of POP was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) and DSQOL at 12 months' follow-up. Primary outcome was factors related to continued use. Secondary outcomes were the percentage continued pessary use after 12 months, improvement of complaints and DSQOL.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-one patients were included; 184 (63%) patients continued pessary use after 12 months. Factors related to continuation following the univariate analysis were age, sexual activity, POP-Q point c ≥ 0 and obstructive micturition. GH < 4 was not significant but added significantly to the prediction model. After multivariate analysis, age, point c ≥ 0 and GH < 4 cm remained predictors for continuation. The ROC showed an AUC of 0.65 (95% CI 0.58-0.71). PGI-I showed 83% perceived their prolapse complaints much or very much improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Continued pessary use was found in 63%. Main predictors for continued pessary use were higher age, more prominent apical compartment prolapse (c ≥ 0) and a GH < 4 cm.

Effect of vaginal estrogen in postmenopausal women using vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse treatment: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Evidence and recommendations for the use of intravaginal estrogen for prevention of bacterial vaginosis and pessary-related complications are limited and controversial. We hypothesized that adding intravaginal estrogen to pessary use would decrease the incidence of bacterial vaginosis and other pessary-related complications.

METHODS

A single-center, open-label, randomized, parallel study was conducted between April 2018 and August 2020. Participants were randomized to either receive intravaginal estriol 0.03 mg plus Lactobacillus acidophilus 100 million viable cell vaginal tablets or have no treatment. The Amsel criteria, normal flora index, visual analog scale, Thai version of the ICIQ-VS (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Vaginal symptoms) questionnaire, vaginal abrasions and vaginal bleeding were evaluated at entry and at 2- and 14-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight women were included and randomized to two groups (39 women per group). At 2-week follow-up, one participant in the intervention group and two participants in the control group were diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis (2.7% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.609). At 14-week follow-up, two participants in the intervention group and two participants in the control group were diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis (5.7% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.926). Normal flora index was significantly different at 2-week follow-up [8 (6.3) vs. 5 (6.0), p = 0.032]. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale, Thai version of the ICIQ-VS, vaginal abrasions and vaginal bleeding between the 2- and 14-week follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows no benefit of intravaginal estrogen in reducing bacterial vaginosis, vaginal abrasions, vaginal bleeding and pain in postmenopausal women using a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.

Vaginal pessary treatment in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a long-term prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 5-year pessary continuation rate and identify clinical risk factors associated with discontinuation in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, 312 women with symptomatic POP received pessary treatment between November 2013 and July 2015 in Peking Union Medical College Hospital, China, a tertiary referral center. Patients were initially fitted with a ring pessary with support. Those who failed were fitted with a Gellhorn pessary. A successful pessary fitting was defined as a patient who was fitted and continued to use the pessary 2 weeks later. Patients with successful pessary fitting were followed for 5 years. Data analysis was performed with t tests, nonparametric tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 265 patients (84.9%) had successful pessary fitting. After 5 years, 180 of 239 patients continued pessary use (75.3% continuation rate), with 26 lost to follow-up. The discontinuation rates decreased over time, from 8.7% at 1 year to 2.7% at 5 years. Total vaginal length < 7.5 cm (TVL, OR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.7, P = 0.007), improvement in Urinary Impact Questionnaire-7 scores < 50% at 3 months (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.2, P = 0.025), and incapability of self-care (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.1, P = 0.008) were potential discontinuation risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Three-quarters of patients with symptomatic POP had successful pessary treatment at 5-year follow-up. TVL < 7.5 cm, poor urinary symptom relief at 3 months, and incapability of self-care were potential discontinuation risk factors.

Guideline No. 411: Vaginal Pessary Use

OBJECTIVE

To review the use, care, and fitting of pessaries.

TARGET POPULATION

Women requiring the use of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence. Use may also be indicated for women with certain pregnancy-related clinical scenarios, including incarcerated uterus.

OPTIONS

Pessaries are an option for women presenting with prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence. In addition, certain types of pessaries can be considered for patients with cervical insufficiency or incarcerated uterus.

OUTCOMES

Most women with prolapse or stress urinary incontinence can be successfully fitted with a pessary and experience excellent symptom relief, high satisfaction rates, and minimal complications.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Women with pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence may choose to use a pessary to manage their symptoms rather than surgery or while waiting for surgery. Major complications have been seen only when pessaries are neglected. Minor complications such as vaginal discharge, odour, and erosions can usually be successfully treated.

EVIDENCE

Medline was searched for relevant articles up to December 2018. This is an update of the SOGC technical update published in 2013, which was the first internationally published guidance on pessary use. Subsequently, an Australian guideline on the use of pessaries for the treatment of prolapse was published later in 2013.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the approach of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Appendix A).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Gynaecologists, obstetricians, family physicians, physiotherapists, residents, and fellows.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATION.

ESTROgen use for complications in women treating pelvic organ prolapse with vaginal PESSaries (ESTRO-PESS)-a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate the complications of new users' vaginal pessaries (VP), with and without the use of vaginal estrogen after a 6-month follow-up.

METHODS

A parallel, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Symptomatic postmenopausal women (n = 98) with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) (stage 3/4) were recruited from August 2018 to October 2019. Patients were randomized into the local estrogen group (promestriene 3 × for a week) and the control group (no estrogen). They were evaluated for their vaginal symptoms at the baseline, after 3 months, and after 6 months, and a physical examination and vaginal sampling for microbiological analysis were done. Data were analyzed according to an intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). A 5% significance level was established for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty women discontinued treatment (20.4%), mainly due to pessary extrusion (n = 15) and 5 for other reasons (lost to follow-up, pain, and surgery). Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the estrogen and control groups. Regarding the presence of complications, the presence of erosion was 10% in the control group, but there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.175) after 6 months. Bacterial vaginosis (BV) was more prevalent in the control group, according to the Nugent (p = 0.007) and Amsel (p = 0.014) criteria. Urinary urgency and increased urinary frequency were significantly improved in the estrogen group after 6 months.

CONCLUSION

There was no evident benefit related to complications such as ulcerations, itching, and vaginal discharge/odor from the use of vaginal estrogen in POP women using pessaries.

Le Fort colpocleisis: An evaluation of results and quality of life at intermediate-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To assess postoperative complications, intermediate-term anatomic and subjective success rates, and quality of life following obliterative Le Fort colpocleisis (LFC) for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study with 53 subjects who underwent LFC surgery between January 2012 and April 2019. Demographic and treatment data were retrieved from a hospital database. Data on postoperative anatomic results were gathered from individual examinations of study subjects. The Clavien-Dindo classification was used to evaluate the complications. The Prolapse-Quality of Life (P-QoL) questionnaire was administered in person or over the telephone before and after the operation. Low scores on the P-QoL reflect a high quality of life.

RESULTS

The mean age at operation was 73 ± 7.1 years. The mean time between LFC and the postoperative questionnaire and interview was 30.8 ± 15.7 months (range: 12-82). Ninety-two percent of subjects had at least one comorbidity. When subjects were classified using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) Quantification System, seven (13.2 %) had Stage 3 POP and 46 (86.8 %) had Stage 4 POP. The overall rate of minor peri-operative complications rate was 11.3 % (six subjects). The objective success rate of LFC at intermediate-term follow-up was 98.1 %, and the subjective success rate was 96.2 %. The mean time between LFC and the postoperative questionnaire and interview was 30.8 ± 15.7 months (range: 12-82). There was a statistically significant decrease in the postoperative P-QoL score (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on positive intermediate-term anatomic and subjective outcomes, including a significant decrease in P-QoL questionnaire scores and a lack of regret, obliterative LFC should be considered a first-choice procedure for elderly and sexually inactive women with advanced POP.

Risk Factors for Dislodgment of Vaginal Pessaries in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the associated factors associated with pessary dislodgment in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

A cohort study with women (N = 98) with advanced POP who chose conservative treatment with ring pessary between December 2016 and 2018 identified by screening. Demographic data, history of POP, urinary, and/or bowel symptoms were collected. A medical visit was scheduled 3 and 6 months after pessary insertion to evaluate symptoms (vaginal discharge, bleeding, pain, discomfort, new-onset urinary, or fecal problems) and any pessary dislodgment. Two groups were created (women who were able to retain the pessary versus who were not able), and univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to look for risk factors for pessary dislodgment. Women who requested to have their pessaries removed during the 6-month follow-up were excluded.

RESULTS

Ninety-three women included in the study, 78 successfully continued to use the pessary at 6 months, and 15 had pessary dislodgment (16.1%). Demographic characteristics were similar between the treatment group and the control group. After multivariate analysis, women who had their pessaries dislodged presented higher rates of previous surgery (odds ratio = 8.11; 95% confidence interval = 2.09-31.58; P = 0.003) with advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system staging (odds ratio, 13.41; confidence interval, 1.97-91.36; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of advanced apical POP and previous POP surgery are risk factors for ring pessary dislodgment. This information should guide physicians for counseling patients before pessary insertion.

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Review of In Vitro Testing of Pelvic Support Mechanisms

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects a significant portion of the female population, impacting quality of life and often requiring intervention. The exact cause of prolapse is unknown.

Methods: We review some of the current research that focuses on defining the elements involved in POP, with a focus on in vitro testing.

Results: Treatment for POP, ranging from physical therapy or pessary use to more invasive surgery, has varying success rates. This variation is, in part, because the pathophysiology of pelvic floor support—and thus dysfunction—is incompletely understood, particularly regarding the structural components and biomechanical properties of tissue. However, researchers are working to identify and quantify the structural and functional dysfunction that may lead to the development of this condition.

Conclusion: Given the limited understanding of prolapse development, more research is needed to quantify the microstructure of the pelvic organs and pelvic support structures, with and without prolapse. Identifying biomechanical properties in multiaxial configurations will improve our understanding of pelvic tissue support, as well as our ability to establish predictive models and improve clinical treatment strategies.

Directive clinique n° 411 : Utilisation des pessaires

OBJECTIF

Passer en revue l'utilisation, l'entretien et l'ajustement des pessaires.

POPULATION CIBLE

Les femmes qui ont besoin d'utiliser un pessaire en raison d'un prolapsus génital et/ou d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort. L'utilisation peut être indiquée chez les femmes enceintes dans certains scénarios cliniques liés à la grossesse, dont l'incarcération utérine et le risque de travail préterme liée à l'incompétence du col.

OPTIONS

Les pessaires constituent une option pour les femmes atteintes d'un prolapsus et/ou d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort. De plus, certains types de pessaires peuvent être utilisés chez des patientes atteintes d'incompétence du col ou d'une incarcération utérine.

ISSUES

Il est possible de trouver un pessaire efficace chez la plupart des femmes atteintes d'un prolapsus génital ou d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort de façon à obtenir un excellent soulagement des symptômes, un taux de satisfaction élevé et des complications minimes. BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: Les femmes atteintes d'un prolapsus génital et/ou d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort peuvent choisir d'utiliser un pessaire pour traiter leurs symptômes au lieu de subir une intervention chirurgicale ou dans l'attente d'une telle intervention. Des complications majeures ont été observées seulement en cas de soins de pessaire négligés. Les complications mineures (telles que les pertes vaginales, les odeurs et les érosions) sont généralement traitables avec succès. DONNéES PROBANTES: Des recherches ont été effectuées dans la base de données Medline afin de récupérer les articles pertinents publiés jusqu'en décembre 2018. Le présent document constitue une mise à jour de la mise à jour technique de la SOGC publiée en 2013, laquelle a été la première directive clinique publiée à l'international relativement à l'utilisation des pessaires. Une ligne directrice australienne sur l'utilisation des pessaires pour le traitement du prolapsus a été publiée plus tard en 2013. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteures ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la solidité des recommandations au moyen des critères du cadre méthodologique du Groupe d'étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs (annexe A). PROFESSIONNELS CONCERNéS: Gynécologues, obstétriciens, médecins de famille, physiothérapeutes, résidents et moniteurs cliniques (fellows). DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: RECOMMANDATION.

Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse.  This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms. Generally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials. Pessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty). Pessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls. Pessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms.   The review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.

The impact of personality traits on pessary treatment outcomes in patients with pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Personality traits can play an important role in outcomes of different chronic disorders. We hypothesize that the pessary treatment outcomes in symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can also be influenced by personality traits.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included consecutive women with symptomatic POP seeking pessary treatment between December 2018 and January 2020. The personality profile was measured using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R) at baseline, and patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7) and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) at baseline and at 3 months. The correlation between HRQoL and personality traits was investigated by means of linear regression.

RESULTS

In total, 213 patients were included, of which 163 patients (76.5%) achieved success by the 3-month follow-up. No significant differences were found in the EPQ scores between the successful and unsuccessful groups. The scores on both the PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 correlated significantly with neuroticism and correlated inversely with extraversion at both baseline and the 3-month follow-up. The degree of improvement in PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 scores was not associated with personality traits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that neurotic and introverted women were more bothered by POP-related symptoms, although the improvement in symptoms was not significantly associated with personality traits after 3 months of pessary treatment.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial

Background

Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care.

Methods

This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months’ post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months’ post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper.

Discussion

The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women’s quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577. Registered on June 10, 2017.

Pessary evaluation for genital prolapse treatment: From acceptance to successful fitting

AIMS

To determine the percentage of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse who opted for pessary and had a successful pessary fitting trial; to identify the most commonly used size of pessary for stage of prolapse; and to identify risk factors associated with unsuccessful fitting.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of women with symptoms of genital prolapse referred to a public hospital tertiary care clinic (2013-2019). We used ring and ring with support pessaries for fittings. We collected patient demographics, pelvic organ prolapse quantification, size of pessary used and evaluated factors associated with pessary fittings. We defined unsuccessful fit as failure to continue pessary use at 4 weeks post fitting trial. We used Mann-Whitney and χ² tests to compare variables between groups of successfully and unsuccessfully fitted. Using logistic regression, we built a prediction model for unsuccessful fit.

RESULTS

All 170 women with symptomatic prolapse referred to our clinic accepted to undergo a pessary fitting. More than 70% (n = 124/72.9%) were successfully at 4 weeks. We used an average of 1.7 pessaries (range: 1-6) per patient to identify the best-fitting pessary and #2, 5, 3, 7, and 4 were the sizes commonly used (78.2%). Women with body mass index ≥30 kg/m² (odds ratio [OR]: 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.98-11.32; P < .001), total vaginal length <7.5 cm (OR: 3.78; 95% CI, 1.98-11.32; P < .001), and sexually active women (OR: 2.26; 95% CI, 1.04-4.91; P = .035) were associated with increased unsuccessful fitting.

CONCLUSION

The vaginal pessary proved to be an excellent choice, with high acceptance and successful fitting rates.

Factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: Systematic review and metanalysis

AIMS

To identify the factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting and reasons for discontinuation for women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

This systematic review is registered at the PROSPERO database. We have included all studies, regardless of the study design whose primary outcomes were factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting and discontinuation for symptomatic POP women. Exclusion criteria were case series, literature reviews, other forms of conservative treatment. Data selection/extraction was performed by two investigators. For pessary fitting, a meta-analysis was performed for at least two studies pooled in a forest plot. The risk of bias was classified by the ROBINS-I and ROB-2 classification.

RESULTS

From 409 studies retrieved after data search, only twenty-one articles remained for final analysis (18 cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study, and 2 RCTs). Meta-analysis was performed in nine studies for pessary fitting and the associated factors were: higher body mass index (BMI) (MD = 0.688 [0.233-1.143]; P = .03; i² = 0%), previous reconstructive surgery (OR = 1.705 [1.016-2.860]; P = .043; i² = 69%) and advanced POP (OR = 4.2 [2.9-6.1]; P < .05; i² = 92%). Older age, larger total vaginal length (TVL), and genital hiatus and previous hysterectomy were not associated factors. Regarding discontinuation, thirteen reasons were quoted, and the most frequent were: the desire for surgical treatment (111/3.601), pessary extrusion (385/3.601), and pain/discomfort (163/3.601).

CONCLUSION

Obese, previously reconstructive pelvic surgery, advanced prolapse are at risk for unsuccessful pessary fitting. Pain is the most quoted reason for discontinuation. These pooled data may help clinicians to identify patients that may not succeed in their attempt for pessary treatment.

Pelvic organ prolapse management

Pelvic organ prolapse describes the loss of support and subsequent descent of pelvic organs into the vagina. It is common, affecting up to 50% of parous women, and can be accompanied by a number of burdening symptoms. Prolapse has been thrown into the spotlight secondary to mesh-related complications. There are a number of effective treatment options to consider when managing pelvic organ prolapse and most do not require mesh. Patients' choice, comorbidities and likelihood of treatment success should be considered when making decisions about their care. Vaginal mesh surgery is currently on hold in the UK and even prior to this there has been a reduction both in the number of all prolapse surgeries and the number of women seeking surgery to manage their symptoms. This article reviews the current evidence for the management of pelvic organ prolapse, providing an update on the current state of mesh in prolapse surgery and summarises the key evidence points derived from the literature.

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 214

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common, benign condition in women. For many women it can cause vaginal bulge and pressure, voiding dysfunction, defecatory dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, which may adversely affect quality of life. Women in the United States have a 13% lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for POP (). Although POP can occur in younger women, the peak incidence of POP symptoms is in women aged 70-79 years (). Given the aging population in the United States, it is anticipated that by 2050 the number of women experiencing POP will increase by approximately 50% (). The purpose of this joint document of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society is to review information on the current understanding of POP in women and to outline guidelines for diagnosis and management that are consistent with the best available scientific evidence.

Women and healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes and practice related to pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: A Systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and healthcare professionals in relation to pessary use for POP.

METHOD

This systematic review was carried out in agreement with PRISMA recommendations. PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, CAPES Periodicals and CINAHL databases were searched for studies without date or language limitations. Search strategies were developed for identifying studies examining knowledge, attitudes and practice toward vaginal pessaries use. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify eligible studies. Data extraction was performed independently in duplicate into a standardized form. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews [CRD42018114236].

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. Knowledge and practice were the main domains investigated among patients and professionals, respectively. The results demonstrated poor patient knowledge; however, in urogynecologic patients, knowledge was better. Previous consultation with a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery specialist (p = .001) and a higher level of education (p = .006) were associated with improved knowledge of pessary use. Fear of vaginal discharge, irritation, bleeding, and pain were factors that supported the decision not to use a pessary. Previous consultation with a generalist gynecologist (p = .03)and a lower level of education (p = .03) predicted aversion to pessary use. Providers demonstrated adequate knowledge and recommended pessary in 86.4% to 98.0% of cases. Having specialist and pessary management training were some factors that influenced a better attitude towards pessaries among health professionals.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and health care providers about pessary use are seldom investigated. Developing a psychometrically valid instrument for assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practice is desirable to examine the complex interactions between these three constructs, expose barriers to pessary care, and develop targeted educational interventions.

Effect of pessary cleaning and optimal time interval for follow-up: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of routine follow-up visits for pessary cleaning, the effect of extended time intervals between visits and the proportion of patients being able to self-manage their pessary for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study in patients with a stage ≥II POP without previous POP surgery. All patients received a pessary as primary treatment. Our main outcome measure was a difference ≥2 in median visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (for pain, discharge, irritation) 1 week before and 1 week after cleaning. Measurements were performed after 3- and 9-month cleaning intervals. For the evaluation of the effect of cleaning, 132 patients (3 months' follow-up) and 87 patients (12 months' follow-up) were available for analysis. For the evaluation of the effect of the lengthening interval, 123 patients were available.

RESULTS

Self-management was performed in 45.2% of patients at 1 year. In 93.1% of patients, no differences were observed in pre-and post-cleaning VAS scores (effect of cleaning) on vaginal pain. Nor was there a difference in discharge (72.4%) or irritation 85.1% (p = 0.00). No differences were observed in pre-cleaning VAS scores for vaginal pain, discharge and irritation when the interval was lengthened from 3 to 9 months. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no proven benefit of regular follow-up visits to clean a pessary. Also, the length of the cleaning interval does not seem to matter.

Managing female pelvic floor disorders: a medical device review and appraisal

Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) will affect most women during their lifetime. Sequelae such as pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, chronic pain and dyspareunia significantly impact overall quality of life. Interventions to manage or eliminate symptoms from PFDs aim to restore support of the pelvic floor. Pessaries have been used to mechanically counteract PFDs for thousands of years, but do not offer a cure. By contrast, surgically implanted grafts or mesh offer patients a more permanent resolution but have been in wide use within the pelvis for less than 30 years. In this perspective review, we provide an overview of the main theories underpinning PFD pathogenesis and the animal models used to investigate it. We highlight the clinical outcomes of mesh and grafts before exploring studies performed to elucidate tissue level effects and bioengineering considerations. Considering recent turmoil surrounding transvaginal mesh, the role of pessaries, an impermanent method, is examined as a means to address patients with PFDs.

The effect of time interval of vaginal ring pessary replacement for pelvic organ prolapse on complications and patient satisfaction: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Limited data are available on the effect of the time interval of vaginal ring pessary replacement for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study investigated the effect of different replacement intervals on complications and patient satisfaction.

STUDY DESIGN

A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary urogynecology center. Women with a vaginal ring pessary for POP (stage I to IV) were randomly allocated to two groups: 3-monthly or 6-monthly ring pessary replacement. All women were blinded to the replacement interval. Investigators were blinded during outcome assessment. Subjects were followed up for 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the complication rates and patient satisfaction scores at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the change in patient-reported symptoms and staging of POP.

RESULTS

Of 101 women were screened from June 2016 to November 2017, 60 were recruited and randomly allocated: 30 to the 3-monthly replacement group and 30 to the 6-monthly replacement group. The overall complication rate in the 6-monthly group was higher than that in the 3-monthly group at the third visit (9 [30%] vs. 3[10.3%]; OR 3.71; 95%CI 0.89-15.58), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.061). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in patient satisfaction scores, other prolapse-related symptoms or staging of POP.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence on the effect of replacement interval for a vaginal pessary on complications and patient satisfaction. A higher complication rate was found in the 6-monthly group than in the 3-monthly group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Patient satisfaction scores were similar in both groups.

Person-Centered Care for Patients with Pessaries

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition affecting women of any age but more likely to occur in the aging woman. Prolapse has a significant impact on quality of life, sexuality, and body image. Vaginal support pessaries have been used since ancient times and are a safe and effective nonsurgical treatment option. Fitting a pessary results in immediate symptom improvement. A comprehensive evaluation for pessary fitting is time intensive but necessary. Nurse providers perform direct pessary care and have a role in caring for women with prolapse expanding access to care. Caregiver and family involvement is important for pessary care and follow-up.