Predictors of successful ring pessary use in women with pelvic organ prolapse

Value of pelvic examination in women with pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recent recommendations from the French High Authority of Health on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) management underline the value of a pelvic examination.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to analyze the literature and identify the best evidence available regarding pelvic examination for women presenting prolapse-associated symptoms in terms of diagnosis and predictability of treatment success.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The databases were queried similarly using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms broadly related to pelvic examination and POP management.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies assessing the diagnostic contribution of pelvic examination (correlation with symptoms) and its value for assessing the risk of pessary failure or recurrence after reconstructive surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed peer-reviewed articles on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database up to May 2023. The methodological quality of all the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-E or RoB2 tools.

MAIN RESULTS

In all, 67 studies were retained for the review. Prolapse-associated symptoms are poorly correlated with POP diagnosis. The symptom that is best correlated with the POP stage is the presence of a vaginal bulge (moderate to good correlation). The factors most strongly associated with the risk of recurrence after surgery or pessary failure are clinical: essentially a higher POP stage before surgery, levator ani muscle avulsion, and vaginal and genital measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

In women complaining of prolapse-associated symptoms, a pelvic examination (vaginal speculum and digital vaginal examination) can confirm the presence of POP and identify risk factors for treatment failure or recurrence after surgical management or pessary placement. A higher stage of POP and levator ani muscle avulsion-discernible on pelvic examination-are major risk factors for POP recurrence or treatment failure. These features must be taken into account in the treatment choice and discussed with the patient.

Explorative Identification of Anatomical Parameters Associated with Successful Pessary Fitting in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects many women and is often managed with pessary treatment, yet predicting the success of fitting remains challenging. This study aims to identify anatomical parameters associated with successful and unsuccessful pessary treatment using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). Methods: A cross-sectional study in Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), the Netherlands. Sixteen women with a cystocele and/or descensus uteri minimal POP-Q stage 2, using pessary treatment, were included. All women underwent a dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor at rest, during contraction and on Valsalva. The anatomical parameters evaluated included various lengths and angles. The association between the anatomical parameters and pessary fitted is assessed using partial least squares regression. The predictive accuracy was tested using cross-validation based on the partial least squares model with the most important variables. Results: Seven of the sixteen women (43.8%) were in the non-fitting group (due to movement, rotation or expulsion of the pessary), and nine women (56.3%) were in the fitting group. Participants in the non-fitting group had a significantly lower body mass index (BMI). Variables such as total vaginal length (TVL) and certain angles were highly predictive of pessary fitting success, with variable importance of projection (VIP) scores indicating their importance. The prediction models showed accuracies ranging from 53.3% to 80.0%. Conclusions: In this explorative study, TVL, cervical length (CL), sacrococcygeal angle and pubococcygeal angle were key variables associated with pessary fitting success. These findings offer valuable insights for optimizing pessary fitting procedures and the development of new pessaries.

Cost-Effectiveness of 2 Models of Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Findings From the TOPSY Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more reproductive organs from their normal position, causing associated negative symptoms. One conservative treatment option is pessary management. This study aimed to to investigate the cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) when compared with clinic-based care (CBC). A decision analytic model was developed to extend the economic evaluation.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial with health economic evaluation. The SM group received a 30-minute SM teaching session, information leaflet, 2-week follow-up call, and a local helpline number. The CBC group received routine outpatient pessary appointments, determined by usual practice. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), 18 months post-randomization. Uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrap analysis. In addition, a simple decision analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean number of QALYs gained between SM and CBC (1.241 vs 1.221), but mean cost was lower for SM (£578 vs £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modeling results were consistent with the trial analysis: the incremental net benefit was estimated as £4221, and the probability of SM being cost-effective at 5 years was 69.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that pessary SM is likely to be cost-effective. The decision analytic model suggests that this result is likely to persist over longer durations.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation

Background

Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care.

Objectives

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity.

Design

A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation.

Participants

Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking.

Intervention

The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice.

Allocation

Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre.

Blinding

Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation.

Outcomes

The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat.

Results

Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations.

Conclusions

Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment.

Study registration

This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A randomized controlled study comparing the objective efficacy and safety of a novel self-inserted disposable vaginal prolapse device and existing ring pessaries

Introduction

ProVate is a novel, disposable, collapsible self-inserted vaginal device for the nonsurgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We assessed possible vaginal microflora changes and POP reduction using ProVate and a commercially available ring pessary (control).

Methods

We performed post-hoc analysis of data obtained from an interventional, prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled, statistically powered (noninferiority), home-use, cross-over study conducted at seven sites. Safety and performance data collected for both devices were analyzed to compare objective POP reduction (employing the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System [POP-Q]), safety (assessed by the incidence of adverse events [AEs]), and the rates of certain AEs.

Results

Eighty-five women with symptomatic POP were screened; 71 were randomized, and 58 completed the study per protocol. Forty-nine (90.7%) ProVate users experienced complete prolapse reduction (stage 0), 3 (5.6%) experienced reductions to POP-Q stage 1, and 2 (3.7%%) experienced reductions to stage 2. Collectively, 52/54 (96.3%) ProVate users experienced prolapse reduction to stage 0 or 1. In all, 47/57 (82.5%) control users experienced complete prolapse reduction, while 5 (8.8%), 4 (7.0%), and 1 (1.8%) experienced reductions to stage 1, 2, and stage 3, respectively. Collectively, 52/57 (91.2%) control users experienced reductions to either stage 0 or 1. In 53/54 (98.1%) ProVate and 55/57 (96.5%) control users, there was at least 1 POP-Q stage prolapse reduction, and in 32 (91.4%) ProVate and 31 (83.8%) control users who had stage ≥3 prolapse, there were at least three POP-Q stage reductions. In total, 26/71 (36.6%) ProVate and 22/64 (34.4%) control users in the safety population experienced AEs. The incidence of device-related AEs was 17/71 (23.9%) for ProVate and 13/64 (20.3%) for the control. Most AEs were minor, mild, and anticipated.

Conclusion

Our analysis demonstrated that ProVate and the control are highly effective in reducing POP, and both are associated with comparably low numbers of AEs. However, ProVate has the advantage of being more user-friendly, suitable for home use, and expected to allow women with POP to practice better and easier self-care.

Novel, disposable, self-inserted, vaginal device for the non-surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: efficacy, safety, and quality of life

Background

We evaluated a novel disposable, collapsible, ring-shaped vaginal device that is self-inserted within an applicator and removed with a string. The device was developed to overcome the drawbacks of existing ring pessaries for non-surgical pelvic organ prolapse management (POP).

Methods

The primary objective efficacy endpoint of this prospective, interventional, multicenter, self-controlled, and home-use study was the proportion of subjects with improved staging on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scale. Subjective efficacy was assessed using the POP symptoms alleviation score. Safety was evaluated by recording the rate and incidence of adverse events (AEs) in a daily diary, and quality of life (QoL) was evaluated using the modified Pelvic Floor Impact (PFIQ-7) and Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) questionnaires.

Results

A total of 94 usage cycles were observed in a group of 52 participants (mean age 60.2 ± 10.5 years, 81.1% postmenopausal) who used the device for 3558 days. Of these, 24 participants completed one usage cycle, 14 completed two usage cycles, and 14 completed three usage cycles with 28–45 days of ProVate use in each usage cycle. All patients experienced greater than two POP-Q stage reductions. The descent was completely reduced to POP-Q stage 0 in 97.8% of participants. The POP symptom alleviation questionnaire showed significant subjective efficacy (P < 0.0001). The modified PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores also improved substantially (P < 0.0001 for both). There were 91 nonserious device-related AEs: 98.9% were mild and 87.9% anticipated, with no vaginal infection, and one case of urinary tract infection.

Conclusion

The novel device substantially reduces prolapse and provides significant subjective POP symptom relief and QoL improvement, with minimal AEs. The device may enable women to self-manage their prolapse with a small, disposable device that minimizes self-touching and frequent dependency on the clinic.

Trial registration

Clinical.Trials.gov, NCT02239133, posted September 12, 2014 (retrospectively registered).

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.

Patient-Centered Goals for Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders

Purpose of review

To review the current literature on patient centered goals for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders (PFDs).

Recent findings

Patients have a poor understanding of their PFDs, regardless if they had prior PFD treatments or received counseling, emphasizing the need for improved education from healthcare providers. Understanding the patient perspective provides insights into identifying patient goals, which facilitates communication and allows for tailored counseling, management of expectations, and assessment of treatment response. Functional outcomes are consistently important to patients, often listed as their main treatment goals. The achievement of these goals is fundamental to satisfaction. IMPACT and PROMIS are examples of PCO measures that can be utilized in both research and clinical settings. Finally, telemedicine has emerged as a viable alternative to clinic visits that offers improved access to care with no increase in adverse events or dissatisfaction, in order to aid in monitoring and meeting patient treatment goals.

Summary

Patient involvement is fundamental to providing value-based care. Provider understanding of the patient perspective is necessary to guide counseling and treatment. Patient-centered goals offer a way to engage patients, facilitate communication, and improve patient satisfaction. Although there are multiple validated PCO tools, further development and research involving patient input is needed.

Transperineal ultrasound to estimate the appropriate ring pessary size for women with pelvic organ prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to predict the successful ring pessary size based on the levator hiatal area (HA).

Methods

This is a prospective case–control study. Women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) choosing pessary treatment were included. All women underwent an interview, clinical examination, and 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound (TPUS). The ring pessary size used in each trial and the reason for unsuccessful trials were recorded. In addition, levator hiatal area divided by ring pessary size (HARP ratio) was measured at rest, maximum contraction, and maximum Valsalva. The HARP ratios of successful and unsuccessful trials were compared, receiver operating characteristic curves in the prediction of successful trials were constructed, and the cut-off optimizing sensitivity and specificity was identified.

Results

A total of 162 women were assessed and 106 were included with 77 successful trials, 49 unsuccessful trials owing to dislodgment or failure to relieve POP symptoms, and 20 unsuccessful trials owing to pain/discomfort. Rest HARP ratio and Valsalva HARP ratio were significantly smaller in the successful trials versus dislodgment/failure to relieve POP symptoms trials (mean rest HARP ratio [SD]: 2.93 [0.59] vs 3.24 [0.67], p = 0.021; median Valsalva HARP ratio (IQR): 4.65 (1.56) vs 5.32 (2.08), p = 0.004). No significant difference was observed between pain/discomfort trials and successful trials. The best cut-off for the prediction of successful trials was Valsalva HARP ratio ≤ 5.00.

Conclusions

Unsuccessful fitting trials due to dislodgment/failure to relieve POP symptoms are associated with a small ring pessary with respect to the levator HA. A ring pessary that produces a Valsalva HARP ratio > 5.00 has a higher risk of dislodgment/failure to relieve POP symptoms.

Pessary or surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: the PEOPLE study, a multicentre prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 24-month efficacy of pessary or surgery as the primary treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective comparative cohort study.

SETTING

Twenty-two Dutch hospitals.

POPULATION

Women referred with symptomatic POP of stage ≥2 and moderate-to-severe POP symptoms.

METHODS

The primary outcome was subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up according to the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcomes included improvement in prolapse-related symptoms measured with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), improvement in subjective severeness of symptoms according to the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) scale and crossover between therapies. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of adverse events.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

PGI-I at 24 months.

RESULTS

We included 539 women, with 335 women (62.2%) in the pessary arm and 204 women (37.8%) in the surgery arm. After 24 months, subjective improvement was reported by 134 women (83.8%) in the surgery group compared with 180 women (74.4%) in the pessary group (risk difference 9.4%, 95% CI 1.4-17.3%, P < 0.01). Seventy-nine women (23.6%) switched from pessary to surgery and 22 women (10.8%) in the surgery group underwent additional treatment. Both groups showed a significant reduction in bothersome POP symptoms (P ≤ 0.01) and a reduction in the perceived severity of symptoms (P ≤ 0.001) compared with the baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly more women in the surgery group reported a subjective improvement after 24 months. Both therapies, however, showed a clinically significant improvement of prolapse symptoms.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pessary treatment and vaginal surgery are both efficacious in reducing the presence and severity of prolapse symptoms, although the chance of significant improvement is higher following surgery.