Documenting pessary offer prior to hysterectomy for management of pelvic organ prolapse

Pessary offer documentation in women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse at a tertiary care hospital

BACKGROUND

Women report similar functional outcomes after pessary treatment or surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

AIMS

To assess the documentation of pessary counselling in women who underwent surgery for POP. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted on women who underwent hysterectomy for prolapse. The primary outcome measure was documentation regarding offer of pessary. 'Pessary offer' was defined as documentation that clearly stated that the care provider offered pessary to the patient.

FINDINGS

Over the study period, 81 hysterectomies took place for POP; pessary offer was documented for only 19 (23.5%) case records. Characteristics significantly associated with pessary offer were history of chronic cough (P=0.031), previous pelvic surgery (P<0.001), no secondary indication for surgery (P=0.012), concomitant surgery performed other than hysterectomy (P=0.046), age range (P<0.001) and BMI range (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pessary offer was documented in less than quarter of cases. This denotes a need to strengthen documentation of offer, counselling for pessary, or both of these.

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.