José Luis Dueñas1,2, Alessio Miceli3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, School of Medicine, Seville University, Seville, Spain. jlduenas@us.es. 2. Department of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Area, School of Medicine, Seville University, Avda. Dr. Fedriani, s/n 41009, Seville, Spain. jlduenas@us.es. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, School of Medicine, Seville University, Seville, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is considerable variation in the clinical management of pessaries. This study was aimed at exploring the efficacy of the continuous use of ring pessaries without support for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in nonhysterectomized postmenopausal women. METHODS: We conducted this prospective study of fitted pessaries between January 2013 and June 2015 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Macarena Hospital, Seville University, Spain. A total of 171 nonhysterectomized postmenopausal patients with symptomatic POP (stages III and IV) were counseled for two treatment options: either surgery or vaginal pessary. A total of 94 patients who agreed to use the vaginal ring pessary were included. A successful fitting was defined as the continued use of the device until the end of the study (a median 27-month follow-up). The data were analyzed with continuity correction tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Pessary use was continued by 80.8% of the patients. Most discontinuations (50.0%) occurred within the first week after device insertion. The adverse events rate was 31.6%, and all adverse events were Clavien-Dindo grade I. The complications were extrusion of the pessary (18.4%), bleeding or excoriation (10.5%), and pain or vaginal discharge (2.6%). No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The ring pessary without support was successfully fitted in patients with advanced POP, resulting in a high success rate. There were few side effects and complications associated with continuous use of this pessary without periodic removal or replacement.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is considerable variation in the clinical management of pessaries. This study was aimed at exploring the efficacy of the continuous use of ring pessaries without support for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in nonhysterectomized postmenopausal women. METHODS: We conducted this prospective study of fitted pessaries between January 2013 and June 2015 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Macarena Hospital, Seville University, Spain. A total of 171 nonhysterectomized postmenopausal patients with symptomatic POP (stages III and IV) were counseled for two treatment options: either surgery or vaginal pessary. A total of 94 patients who agreed to use the vaginal ring pessary were included. A successful fitting was defined as the continued use of the device until the end of the study (a median 27-month follow-up). The data were analyzed with continuity correction tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Pessary use was continued by 80.8% of the patients. Most discontinuations (50.0%) occurred within the first week after device insertion. The adverse events rate was 31.6%, and all adverse events were Clavien-Dindo grade I. The complications were extrusion of the pessary (18.4%), bleeding or excoriation (10.5%), and pain or vaginal discharge (2.6%). No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The ring pessary without support was successfully fitted in patients with advanced POP, resulting in a high success rate. There were few side effects and complications associated with continuous use of this pessary without periodic removal or replacement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Advanced pelvic organ prolapse; Adverse events; Continuous use; Efficacy; Ring pessary without support
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Rachel Y K Cheung; Jacqueline H S Lee; L L Lee; Tony K H Chung; Symphorosa S C Chan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Danielle I Niigaki; Rebecca S P Silva; Maria Augusta Tezelli Bortolini; Fátima F Fitz; Rodrigo A Castro Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 1.932