The impact of pessary use on bowel symptoms: one-year outcomes

Posterior compartment prolapse and perineal descent: systematic review of available support devices

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to systematically review the literature about available devices facilitating perineal support during defecation in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) and posterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

We searched for the terms "defecat/ion or ODS" and" pessar/ies or device/aid/tool/perineal/perianal/prolapse and support" in MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science. Data abstraction was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. A two-stage inclusion was performed, selecting first on title and abstract and secondly the full text. For variables with sufficient data, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Other variables were descriptively reported.

RESULTS

Ten studies out of 1332 were included for systematic review. The devices could be categorized into three groups: pessaries (n = 8), vaginal stent (n = 1) and external support device (n = 1). Methodology and data reporting is heterogeneous. Meta-analysis could be performed for the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and Impact Questionnaire (CRAI-Q-7) in three pessary studies which showed a significant mean change. Significant improvement of stool evacuation was seen in two other pessary studies. The vaginal stent significantly decreases ODS. Subjective perception of constipation improved significantly using the posterior perineal support device.

CONCLUSION

All reviewed devices seem to improve ODS in patients with POP. There are no data on their efficacy with regard to perineal descent-associated ODS. There is a lack of comparative studies between devices. Studies are difficult to compare due to different inclusion criteria and evaluation tools.

Pelvic Organ Prolapse Severity and Genital Hiatus Size With Long-Term Pessary Use

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association between pessary use more than 1 year and change in prolapse severity.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a previously published randomized controlled trial of women undergoing office management of pessaries for management of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence. Primary outcome was change in pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement genital hiatus (GH). Secondary outcomes included change in prolapse stage, type of pessary, size of pessary, number of pessary changes, and duration of use. Baseline data were collected from the earliest documented examination within the hospital record before pessary placement and compared with their final study visit. Demographics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Student t test and Mann-Whitney tests were used for categorical comparisons. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to evaluate change over time.

RESULTS

The cohort was 132 predominantly non-Hispanic White (75%) women with symptomatic prolapse >stage 2 (70.5%). All were postmenopausal. Median duration of pessary use was 39.5 months (interquartile range, 17-64.5 months). Genital hiatus (P = 0.014) and prolapse stage (P = 0.001) decreased as duration of pessary use increased. Those with baseline stages ≥3 had a significant decrease in GH as duration of pessary use increased compared with stages <3 (-0.5 cm vs 0 cm, P < 0.001). There was no difference in change in GH when comparing women with baseline GH less than 3 to 3 cm or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

Pessary use by women with pelvic organ prolapse causes a change in vaginal anatomy over time as seen by decreasing stage and point GH.

Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse.  This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms. Generally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials. Pessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty). Pessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls. Pessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms.   The review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.

Timing of Office-Based Pessary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of pessary visit intervals on development of vaginal epithelial abnormalities.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial of office-based pessary care. Eligible participants were adult women wearing a ring, Gellhorn, or incontinence dish pessary to treat pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence or both. Patients were randomized 1:1 to routine pessary care (office visits every 12 weeks, "routine" arm) or to extended pessary care (office visits every 24 weeks, "extended" arm). The primary study outcome was rate of vaginal epithelial abnormalities (epithelial break or erosion) at the final study visit (48 weeks). The predetermined noninferiority margin was 7.5%.

RESULTS

From January 2015 through June 2017, inclusive, 448 patients were screened and 130 were randomized, 64 to the routine arm and 66 to the extended arm. Baseline characteristics of the study arms were similar with the exception of pessary type, with ring pessary more common in the routine arm and Gellhorn pessary more common in the extended arm (P=.02). The rate of epithelial abnormalities at the final study visit (48 weeks) was 7.4% in the routine arm and 1.7% in the extended arm (difference, -5.7 percentage points; 95% CI -7.4 to -4), which met the criterion for noninferiority. Rates of all types of epithelial abnormalities did not differ between arms at any time point. Increasing duration of pessary use (P=.003) and history of prior epithelial abnormalities were associated with development of epithelial abnormalities (P=.01). Other than epithelial abnormalities, no adverse events related to pessary use occurred in either arm.

CONCLUSION

In women who receive office-based pessary care and are using a ring, Gellhorn, or incontinence dish pessary, routine follow-up every 24 weeks is noninferior to every 12 weeks based on incidence of vaginal epithelial abnormalities.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02371083.

Pessary types and discontinuation rates in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to investigate factors associated with long-term pessary use in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of patients with POP of stage ≥2 managed with a pessary. Patients were excluded if the date of fitting or follow-up was unavailable. Long-term use was defined as more than 1 year. Patient demographics, pessary fitting, and follow-up visit dates were collected. The primary end point was the duration of use and the prognostic impact of pessary type. Secondary objectives addressed other influencing factors including age, estrogen use, and prolapse stage. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 311 patients. The mean (± standard deviation, SD) duration of pessary use was 7.0 ± 0.72 years (median 5.7 years). Long-term use was found in 76 % (164) of these patients. Factors associated with longer use were age >65 years (p = 0.004) and estrogen use (p = 0.048). The estimated mean (± SD) durations of use of the Gellhorn, open ring, ring with support, cube and donut pessaries were 10.5 ± 0.7 years, 3.4 ± 0.6 years, 1.8 ± 0.2 years, 1.8 ± 0.3 years and 1.7 ± 0.5 years, respectively. The Gellhorn pessary was associated with significantly longer use than other pessary types (10.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.0000001); this finding was independent of age, prolapse stage, hysterectomy, and vaginal estrogen use.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis, the duration of use was longest with the Gellhorn pessary. Older age and vaginal estrogen use were associated with longer pessary use.

Changes in Prolapse and Urinary Symptoms After Successful Fitting of a Ring Pessary With Support in Women With Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the percentage of improvement in prolapse and urinary symptoms and adverse effects in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after 3 months of use of a ring pessary with support.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, 109 consecutive women with advanced POP were fitted with a ring pessary with support; 73 (73/109, 67.0%) of the women had a successful 3-month pessary fitting trial. Prolapse symptoms, urinary symptoms, and urinary flow parameters were assessed at baseline and at 3 months. Adverse effects were assessed within 3 months. McNemar's test and paired-sample t tests were performed.

RESULTS

Prolapse and urinary symptoms improved from baseline to 3 months, including bulging (90.4% to 23.3%; P <.001) and pressure (64.4% to 13.7%; P <.001). Voiding difficulty improved in 97.8% of the women (45/46; P <.001), splinting improved in 100% (19/19; P <.001), urge urinary incontinence improved in 76.9% (30/39; P <.001), and stress urinary incontinence improved in 58.1% (18/31; P = .025) after 3 months. After pessary treatment, the differences in maximum flow rate, mean flow rate, void volume, and postvoid residual at baseline and 3 months were statistically significant (P <.05). Vaginal discharge (32/73, 43.8%) was the most common adverse event. Vaginal ulcers developed in 7 (7/73, 9.6%) of the women.

CONCLUSION

The ring pessary with support was successfully fitted in patients with advanced POP with a high success rate and few complications. The pessary could resolve more than half of the prolapse and urinary symptoms. Therefore, initial conservative treatment with a ring pessary with support in advanced POP is worthwhile.