Ring and Gellhorn pessaries used in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study of 8 years

Adverse events associated with pessary use over one year among women attending a pessary care clinic

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective was to determine the adverse event rate associated with pessary use. Secondary objectives were to determine discontinuation, patient satisfaction, and factors associated with adverse events.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study included patients attending a nurse-led pessary clinic with ≥ 1 year follow-up. Patients were fitted with a pessary by a urogynecologist and pessary care by a nurse was performed every 3-4 months. Demographic characteristics, pessary fitting, adverse events, their management and discontinuation were recorded. Pearson Chi-square and Fisher exact tests assessed the association between predetermined risk factors and pessary complications or discontinuation. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were computed.

RESULTS

215 women were followed for a mean (standard deviation) of 4.4 (1.9) years. Mean age was 73.8 (8.7) years. Adverse event rate was 83.7%; most commonly vaginal discharge, vaginal bleeding and erosions. Women with cardiovascular risk factors were less likely to develop pessary-related adverse events (79.7% vs. 91.9%, p = 0.03). Gellhorn and donut pessaries were more commonly associated with pessary erosions than ring with support pessaries or incontinence rings (RR 2.37 [1.67; 3.38]). Thirty-five (16.3%) women discontinued pessary use at a mean of 3.3 (1.7) years after initial fitting. Having a pessary erosion was not associated with discontinuation (p = 0.698), but recurrent erosions were (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Adverse events were common among women continuing to use pessaries past 1 year, but adherence and satisfaction rates remained high after 4.4 years. Pessary type and absence of cardiovascular factors were associated with pessary-related adverse events.

Vaginal Pessary Use and Management for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Developed by the joint writing group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates. Individual writing group members are noted in the Acknowledgments section

ABSTRACT

Over the past 50 years, pessary use has increased in popularity and has become an essential pelvic organ prolapse (POP) management tool. However, evidence is lacking to define care standardization, including pessary fitting, routine maintenance, and management of pessary-related complications. This clinical consensus statement (CCS) on vaginal pessary use and management for POP reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society and Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates. The purpose of this CCS is to identify areas of expert consensus and nonconsensus regarding pessary fitting, follow-up, and management of pessary complications to improve the safety and quality of care where evidence is currently limited. The American Urogynecologic Society and Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates' vaginal pessary for POP writing group used a modified Delphi process to assess statements that were evaluated for consensus after a structured literature search. A total of 31 statements were assessed and divided into 3 categories: (1) fitting and follow-up, (2) complications, and 3) quality of life. Of the 31 statements that were assessed, all statements reached consensus after 2 rounds of the Delphi survey. This CCS document hopefully serves as a first step toward standardization of pessary care, but the writing group acknowledges that improved research will grow the base of knowledge and evidence providing clinicians a foundation to manage pessary care effectively and confidently.

Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Quality of life (QoL) improvement is one of the main outcomes in the management of pelvic organ prolapse as a chronic illness in women. This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of surgical or pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) on quality of life. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was applied. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched for original articles that evaluated the QoL before and after surgical interventions or pessary in pelvic organ prolapse from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2022 with a combination of proper keywords. Included studies were categorized based on interventions, and they were tabulated to summarize the results. Results: Overall, 587 citations were retrieved. Of these, 76 articles were found eligible for final review. Overall, three categories of intervention were identified: vaginal surgeries (47 studies), abdominal surgeries (18 studies), and pessary intervention (11 studies). Almost all interventions were associated with improved quality of life. The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant association between the employment of surgical approach techniques (including vaginal and abdominal surgeries) and the quality of life (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) (MD: −48.08, 95% CI: −62.34 to −33.77, p-value < 0.01), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) (MD: −33.41, 95% CI: −43.48 to −23.34, p < 0.01)) and sexual activity of patients with pelvic organ prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) (MD: 4.84, 95% CI: 1.75 to 7.92, p < 0.01)). Furthermore, narrative synthesis for studies investigating the effect of the pessary approach showed a positive association between the use of this instrument and improvement in the quality of life and sexual activity. Conclusions: The results of our study revealed a significant improvement in the women’s quality of life following abdominal and vaginal reconstructive surgery. The use of pessary was also associated with increased patient quality of life.

How Satisfied Are Women 6 Months after a Pessary Fitting for Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

BACKGROUND

The non-surgical solution for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) typically consists of a pessary fitting. We aimed to assess patient satisfaction and symptom improvement 6 months after a pessary fitting and to identify risk factors associated with pessary failure.

METHODS

Six months after a pessary fitting, patient satisfaction was assessed by the PGII score; symptoms and quality of life were assessed using validated questionnaires (PFDI-20, ICIQ-SF, PISQ-12, USP, and PFIQ-7).

RESULTS

Of the 190 patients included in the study (mean age of 66.7 years), 141 (74%) and 113 (59%) completed the follow-up questionnaires at 1 and 6 months, respectively. Nearly all the women were menopausal (94.6%) and 45.2% declared being sexually active at inclusion. The satisfaction rate was 84.3% and 87.4% at 1 and 6 months, respectively. The global symptom score PFDI-20 had significantly improved at 6 months. A high body mass index (RR = 1.06, CI_95%: [1.02-1.09]), as well as high PFDI-20 (1.05 [1.01-1.09]), PFIQ7 (1.04 [1.01, 1.08]), and PISQ12 scores at inclusion (0.75 [0.60, 0.93]), as well as higher GH and GH/TVL measurements (1.49 [1.25-1.78] and 1.39 [1.23-1.57], respectively) were associated with pessary failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pessary seems to be an effective treatment for POP with high patient satisfaction. Higher BMI, higher symptom scores, and greater genital hiatus measurements before insertion are risk factors for failure at 6 months.

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.

Vaginal Pessary for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A French Multidisciplinary Survey

Objective: Pessary fitting and follow-up for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be performed by different health care practitioners (HCPs). We aimed to investigate knowledge and current practices among the main HCPs involved in pessary use in France. Materials and Methods: We sent an electronic questionnaire about pessary use to the members of eight French learned societies between April and October 2020. Results: During the study period, 1017 HCPs responded to the questionnaire: 712 (70.0%) were doctors, 208 (20.4%) physiotherapists, 95 (9.3%) midwives, and 7 (0.6%) nurses. Of the respondents, 69.1% claimed to be comfortable with pessary fitting and follow-up, and 54.1% think that a pessary can be offered as a first-line treatment in the management of POP. However, 60.1% reported that the main indications for pessaries were "older women," 71.3% for women with contraindications to surgery, and 60.5% for women waiting for surgery. 23.9% do not prescribe local estrogen therapy with a pessary for postmenopausal women. The main pessaries used are the ring and cube types (63.7 and 57.5%, respectively). Wide introitus (53.3%), difficulties of use (56.3%), a short vagina (41.4%), and major unmasked urinary incontinence (47.2%) are considered to be the main risk factors for pessary failure. The most common complications related to pessaries reported by the patients are vaginal discharge (48.6%) and pain or discomfort (40.6%). Up to 43.4% of respondents considered that a follow-up visit every 3-6 months was optimal. The need for training ranged from 42.8% for nurses to 65.2% for general practitioners. Conclusions: This national multidisciplinary survey revealed that HCPs in France are on the whole comfortable with pessaries and mainly prescribe the ring and cube form. Even if opinion about pessaries appears to be changing, HCPs would welcome additional training to improve knowledge and practices.

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.

[The use of pessaries for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A survey from gynecologists and urologists residents]

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition responsible for symptoms that significantly affect the quality of life in women. Despite its effectiveness, low cost and minor side effects, the pessary is little used in France. The objective of our study was to assess the knowledge, training and practices of residents regarding pessaries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This survey was conducted among residents in obstetrics gynecology, medical gynecology and urology in France between March and September 2020.

RESULTS

During the study period, 328 interns responded to the questionnaires. The majority of residents (52.1%) reported never having attended a consultation specializing in pelvicperineology. Only 31.7% felt comfortable having a pessary inserted. According to them, the pessary was indicated in 3 main situations: in case of contraindication to surgery (80%), while awaiting surgery (79%) and in women over 70 years old (62%). The pessary could be offered to all women for only 46.9% of them. Almost 53% of residents reported ignoring the main complications of pessaries and 83.5% felt they needed further training on the subject.

CONCLUSION

Interns seem to be generally aware of the use of the pessary. Their knowledge of the indications, complications or even monitoring leads us to believe that it is essential to promote their training so that the pessary becomes an integral part of the first-line therapeutic arsenal in the event of POPs.

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.

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.

A guide for urogynecologic patient care utilizing telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: review of existing evidence

Introduction and hypothesis

The COVID-19 pandemic and the desire to “flatten the curve” of transmission have significantly affected the way providers care for patients. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeons (FPMRS) must provide high quality of care through remote access such as telemedicine. No clear guidelines exist on the use of telemedicine in FPMRS. Using expedited literature review methodology, we provide guidance regarding management of common outpatient urogynecology scenarios during the pandemic.

Methods

We grouped FPMRS conditions into those in which virtual management differs from direct in-person visits and conditions in which treatment would emphasize behavioral and conservative counseling but not deviate from current management paradigms. We conducted expedited literature review on four topics (telemedicine in FPMRS, pessary management, urinary tract infections, urinary retention) and addressed four other topics (urinary incontinence, prolapse, fecal incontinence, defecatory dysfunction) based on existing systematic reviews and guidelines. We further compiled expert consensus regarding management of FPMRS patients in the virtual setting, scenarios when in-person visits are necessary, symptoms that should alert providers, and specific considerations for FPMRS patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Results

Behavioral, medical, and conservative management will be valuable as first-line virtual treatments. Certain situations will require different treatments in the virtual setting while others will require an in-person visit despite the risks of COVID-19 transmission.

Conclusions

We have presented guidance for treating FPMRS conditions via telemedicine based on rapid literature review and expert consensus and presented it in a format that can be actively referenced.

Is it safe and effective to maintain the vaginal pessary without removing it for 2 consecutive years?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The study was aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of ring pessaries without support under continuous use without periodic removal or replacement for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women for 2 consecutive years.

METHODS

This study was a prospective observational study. A total of 123 women were recruited in a tertiary hospital from January 2013 to January 2016. The primary objective was the percentage of patients maintaining the use of the pessary after 24 months. The secondary objectives were the reasons for discontinuation and the adverse events in patients with successful fittings.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients (93.5%) had a successful fitting. Four patients died of non-pessary-related causes during the study and, one patient dropped out the follow-up so that finally, 110 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Pessary use was maintained by 91.8% of the women at the end of the study. The adverse events rate was low (27.0%). The two main factors of interruption in the pessary use were: age (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99) and history of urinary urge incontinence (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11-0.96]).

CONCLUSIONS

A high success rate and low adverse events rate were achieved in patients with advanced-stage POP with continuous pessary use for 24 months, indicating that a ring pessary could also be used without periodic removal for at least the first 2 years. This practice could reduce the number of control visits.

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.