INTRODUCTION: Pessaries are commonly used to treat pelvic floor disorders, but little is known about the sexual function of pessary users. AIM: We aimed to describe sexual function among pessary users and pessary management with regard to sexual activity. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of new pessary users, where study patients completed validated questionnaires on sexual function and body image at pessary fitting and 3 months later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women completed the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association Revised (PISQ-IR), a validated measure that evaluates the impact of pelvic floor disorders on sexual function, a modified female body image scale (mBIS), and questions regarding pessary management surrounding sexual activity. RESULTS:Of 127 women, 54% (68/127) were sexually active at baseline and 42% (64/114) were sexually active at 3 months. Sexual function scores were not different between baseline and 3 months on all domains except for a drop of 0.15 points (P = 0.04) for sexually active women, and a drop of 0.34 points for non-sexually active women (P = 0.02) in the score related to the sexual partner. Total mBIS score did not change (P = 0.07), but scores improved by 0.2 points (P = 0.03) in the question related to self-consciousness. Pessary satisfaction was associated with improved sexual function scores in multiple domains and improved mBIS scores. The majority (45/64, 70%) of sexually active women removed their pessary for sex, with over half stating their partner preferred removal for sex (24/45, 53%). CONCLUSION: Many women remove their pessary during sex for partner considerations, and increased partner concerns are the only change seen in sexual function in the first 3 months of pessary use. Pessary use may improve self-consciousness and pessary satisfaction is associated with improvements in sexual function and body image.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Pessaries are commonly used to treat pelvic floor disorders, but little is known about the sexual function of pessary users. AIM: We aimed to describe sexual function among pessary users and pessary management with regard to sexual activity. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial of new pessary users, where study patients completed validated questionnaires on sexual function and body image at pessary fitting and 3 months later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women completed the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association Revised (PISQ-IR), a validated measure that evaluates the impact of pelvic floor disorders on sexual function, a modified female body image scale (mBIS), and questions regarding pessary management surrounding sexual activity. RESULTS: Of 127 women, 54% (68/127) were sexually active at baseline and 42% (64/114) were sexually active at 3 months. Sexual function scores were not different between baseline and 3 months on all domains except for a drop of 0.15 points (P = 0.04) for sexually active women, and a drop of 0.34 points for non-sexually active women (P = 0.02) in the score related to the sexual partner. Total mBIS score did not change (P = 0.07), but scores improved by 0.2 points (P = 0.03) in the question related to self-consciousness. Pessary satisfaction was associated with improved sexual function scores in multiple domains and improved mBIS scores. The majority (45/64, 70%) of sexually active women removed their pessary for sex, with over half stating their partner preferred removal for sex (24/45, 53%). CONCLUSION: Many women remove their pessary during sex for partner considerations, and increased partner concerns are the only change seen in sexual function in the first 3 months of pessary use. Pessary use may improve self-consciousness and pessary satisfaction is associated with improvements in sexual function and body image.
Authors: Jerry L Lowder; Chiara Ghetti; Sallie S Oliphant; Laura C Skoczylas; Steven Swift; Galen E Switzer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Minita S Patel; Colleen Mellen; David M O'Sullivan; Christine A Lasala Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: R G Rogers; T H Rockwood; M L Constantine; R Thakar; D N Kammerer-Doak; R N Pauls; M Parekh; B Ridgeway; S Jha; J Pitkin; F Reid; S E Sutherland; E S Lukacz; C Domoney; P Sand; G W Davila; M E Espuna Pons Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Thomas G Gray; Rosanna Sneyd; Kaia Scurr; Georgina L Jones; David Iles; Swati Jha; Stephen C Radley Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Gianluca Pellino; Lisa Ramage; Constantinos Simillis; Oliver Warren; Christos Kontovounisios; Emile Tan; Paris Tekkis Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Nicole J Fregosi; Deslyn T G Hobson; Casey L Kinman; Jeremy T Gaskins; J Ryan Stewart; Kate V Meriwether Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2018 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.091