Laura Wharton1, Ruth Athey2, Swati Jha2. 1. Department of Urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK. laura.wharton@nhs.net. 2. Department of Urogynaecology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield, S10 2SF, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common and associated with sexual dysfunction. Vaginal pessaries are an effective treatment for POP, but their impact on sexual function is not well established. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the impact of vaginal pessaries used for POP on female sexual function. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. A comprehensive search was conducted across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Open Grey and Scopus Citation Database. Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that assessed sexual function in women pre- and post-pessary treatment for POP were included, assessed for risk of bias and their results synthesised. RESULTS: A total of 1,945 titles and abstracts were screened, 104 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 14 studies were included in the narrative analysis and 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results suggest that, in sexually active women, there is no evidence of a deterioration in sexual function and some evidence of an improvement. DISCUSSION: This review offers reassurance that in sexually active women who successfully use a pessary for treatment of their prolapse, there is no deterioration in sexual function. There is some evidence of an improvement in sexual function, but given the clinical heterogeneity in the studies included, caution should be taken in generalising these findings.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common and associated with sexual dysfunction. Vaginal pessaries are an effective treatment for POP, but their impact on sexual function is not well established. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the impact of vaginal pessaries used for POP on female sexual function. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. A comprehensive search was conducted across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Open Grey and Scopus Citation Database. Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that assessed sexual function in women pre- and post-pessary treatment for POP were included, assessed for risk of bias and their results synthesised. RESULTS: A total of 1,945 titles and abstracts were screened, 104 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 14 studies were included in the narrative analysis and 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results suggest that, in sexually active women, there is no evidence of a deterioration in sexual function and some evidence of an improvement. DISCUSSION: This review offers reassurance that in sexually active women who successfully use a pessary for treatment of their prolapse, there is no deterioration in sexual function. There is some evidence of an improvement in sexual function, but given the clinical heterogeneity in the studies included, caution should be taken in generalising these findings.
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Christopher F Maher; Matthew D Barber; Sérgio Camargo; Vani Dandolu; Alex Digesu; Howard B Goldman; Martin Huser; Alfredo L Milani; Paul A Moran; Gabriel N Schaer; Mariëlla I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Danielle D Antosh; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Kate V Meriwether; Gregg Kanter; Alexis A Dieter; Mamta M Mamik; Meadow Good; Ruchira Singh; Alexandriah Alas; Mohamed A Foda; Ethan M Balk; David D Rahn; Rebecca G Rogers Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 7.661