Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Long-term continuations rate of ring pessary use for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse

  • Urogynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate long-term continuation rates, adverse events of ring pessary use at a minimum of 5 years follow-up, and factors associated with discontinuation in symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

Women with symptomatic POP who were treated with vaginal ring pessary and had successful fittings were included. Adverse events and reasons for discontinuation of pessary use were recorded. Patients who were lost to follow-up were defined as discontinuation.

Results

During 12 year-period, 239 of 329 POP patients (72.6%) had successful fittings with ring pessary. The mean age was 67.8 ± 8.9 years (range 27–86) and 70% of patients had advanced stage. The cumulative probability of continued ring pessary use was 84.1%, 64.4%, 49.3%, and 33.5%, at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Most common reason for discontinuation was frequent expulsion (21.6%), followed by vaginal erosion (16.5%), no prolapse improvement (12.4%), and inability or inconvenience to do self-care (9.3%). However, 9 patients (9.3%) had improvement of prolapse and were able to discontinue pessary insertion. Age above 70 years, wide introitus, and incapability of self-care are independent factors associated with long-term discontinuation. Adverse events occurred in 23.4% of patients, 18.8% of them had vaginal erosion, 11.7% vaginal discharge/infection, and 18.4% de novo SUI. However, no statistical significance existed between those who continued and discontinued pessary use due to these adverse events.

Conclusion

Ring pessary is an effective treatment in symptomatic POP, with acceptable long-term continuation rates and minor adverse events. Self-care of pessary is very important aiming to minimize adverse events. Advanced age, wide introitus and incapability of self-care were associated factors for long-term discontinuation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.107583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M (2014) Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol 123:1201–1206. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Atnip SD (2009) Pessary use and management for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 36:541–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2009.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ko PC, Lo TS, Tseng LH, Lin YH, Liang CC, Lee SJ (2011) Use of a pessary in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: quality of life, compliance, and failure at 1-year follow-up. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.09.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manchana T, Bunyavejchevin S (2012) Impact on quality of life after ring pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23:873–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1634-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ramsay S, le Tu M, Tannenbaum C (2016) Natural history of pessary use in women aged 65–74 versus 75 years and older with pelvic organ prolapse: a 12-year study. Int Urogynecol J 27:1201–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2970-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wolff B, Williams K, Winkler A, Lind L, Shalom D (2017) Pessary types and discontinuation rates in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 28:993–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3228-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chien CW, Lo TS, Tseng LH, Lin YH, Hsieh WC, Lee SJ (2020) Long-term outcomes of self-management gellhorn pessary for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 26:e47–e53. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Manchana T (2011) Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284:391–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber AM, Richter HE (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 106:615–634. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000175832.13266.bb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pott-Grinstein E, Newcomer JR (2001) Gynecologists’ patterns of prescribing pessaries. J Reprod Med 46:205–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lamers BH, Broekman BM, Milani AL (2011) Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review. Int Urogynecol J 22:637–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1390-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Karamalis G (2011) A 5-year prospective study of vaginal pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 114:56–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ma C, Zhou Y, Kang J, Zhang Y, Ma Y, Wang Y et al (2021) Vaginal pessary treatment in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a long-term prospective study. Menopause 28:538–545. https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0000000000001751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH (2009) Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG 116:1715–1721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02380.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Viera AJ, Larkins-Pettigrew M (2000) Practical use of the pessary. Am Fam Physician 61:2719–2726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Sokol ER, Jackson ND, Myers DL (2004) Patient characteristics that are associated with continued pessary use versus surgery after 1 year. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.04.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedman S, Sandhu KS, Wang C, Mikhail MS, Banks E (2010) Factors influencing long-term pessary use. Int Urogynecol J 21:673–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1080-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Niigaki DI, Silva RSP, Bortolini MAT, Fitz FF, Castro RA (2022) Predictors for long-term adherence to vaginal pessary in pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective study. Int Urogynecol J 33:3237–3246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05133-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Handa VL, Jones M (2002) Do pessaries prevent the progression of pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13:349–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001920200078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The author contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, analysis and manuscript writing were performed by TM.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarinee Manchana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (Date May 27, 2023/No. 0280/66).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manchana, T. Long-term continuations rate of ring pessary use for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309, 2203–2209 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07299-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07299-9

Keywords

Navigation