Vaginal Pessary for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A French Multidisciplinary Survey

Pessary management practices for pelvic organ prolapse among Australian health care practitioners: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Vaginal pessaries are a low-cost, effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an alternative to surgery. Whilst traditionally pessary management (PM) has been provided by medical professionals, particularly gynaecologists, recent international studies found other professionals, including physiotherapists and nurses, may be involved. It is unknown which health care practitioners (HCPs) provide PM for POP in Australia or the distribution of services.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study design, a self-reported electronic survey investigated Australian HCPs providing PM for POP. Purposive and snowball sampling targeted HCPs, professional organisations and health care facilities. Descriptive statistics described PM in relation to HCP professional profile, PM provision and geographical location.

RESULTS

There were 536 respondents (324 physiotherapists, 148 specialists, 33 general practitioners (GPs) and 31 nurses providing PM. Most worked within metropolitan regions (n = 332, 64%), 140 (27%) in rural, 108 (21%) in regional and 10 (2%) in remote areas. Most worked privately (n = 418, 85%), 153 (46%) worked publicly and 85 (17%) in both. Ring pessaries were most commonly used, followed by cube and Gellhorn. HCPs reported variable training in PM, and 336 (69%) had no mandatory workplace competency standard; however, 324 (67%) wanted further training. Women travelled long distances to access services.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors, nurses and physiotherapists provided PM in Australia. HCPs had variable training and experience in PM, with rural and remote HCPs particularly wanting further training. This study highlights the need for accessible PM services, standardised and competency-based training for HCPs, and governance structures ensuring safe care.

Self-management of vaginal cube pessaries may be a game changer for pelvic organ prolapse treatment: a long-term follow-up study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Loss of anatomical support for the pelvic organs results in pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We hypothesized that daily self-management of a cube pessary might be a safe, feasible long-term treatment in women with symptomatic POP.

METHODS

A cohort of 214 symptomatic POP patients (stage 2+) were enrolled prospectively (January to December 2015). Each patient was size-fitted with a space-filling cube pessary and completed a questionnaire online or by phone ≥5 years after her initial fitting. Change in quality of life (QoL) was measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I).

RESULTS

Of 185 women included in our analyses, 174 (94%) were continuing to use their pessary 4 weeks post-insertion. Among those, 143 (82.2%) used the pessary successfully for ≥5 years. A large majority of these patients (88.8% [127 out of 143]) described their condition as much or very much improved compared with their pretreatment status (PGI-I). Adverse secondary effects (ASEs) were infrequent [15.4% (22 out of 143)]; when they did occur, they were mild, including smelly vaginal discharge (15 out of 22) and slight vaginal bleeding caused by the fitting procedure (6 out of 22).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily self-management of cube pessaries was found to be a safe and effective treatment for improving POP-related symptoms and QoL in the long term.

Identification of Key Factors Influencing the Choice of the Type of Vaginal Pessary for Women Presenting with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Semi-Directive Interviews and Development of an Algorithm

(1) Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be managed using a vaginal pessary. However, the decision-making process whereby health professionals choose the right pessary is unclear. The objective of this study was to focus on the experience of experts in pessary use and to propose an algorithm. (2) Methods: A prospective study, based on face-to-face semi-directive interviews and group discussions, was conducted on a multidisciplinary panel of professional experts specialized in pessary prescriptions. A consensual algorithm was established, and its accuracy was assessed by expert and non-expert panels. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) were used. (3) Results: 17 semi-directive interviews were conducted. The parameters involved in the decision-making process regarding the choice of vaginal pessaries were: desire for self-management (65%), associated urinary stress incontinence (47%), POP type (41%), and POP stage (29%). The algorithm was developed step by step (4 iterations) using the Delphi technique. Most of the expert panel (76%) rated the relevance of the algorithm as 7 or more out of 10 on a visual analog scale according to their own experience (reference activity). Finally, most (81%) of the non-expert panel (n = 230) rated the usefulness of this algorithm as 7 or more out of 10 on a visual analog scale. (4) Conclusions: This study provides an expert panel-based algorithm that may help in the prescription of pessaries for POP.