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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Weber AM, Richter HE (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 106:615–634. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000175832.13266.bb
Pott-Grinstein E, Newcomer JR (2001) Gynecologists’ patterns of prescribing pessaries. J Reprod Med 46:205–208
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
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
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
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
Viera AJ, Larkins-Pettigrew M (2000) Practical use of the pessary. Am Fam Physician 61:2719–2726
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
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
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
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
Funding
The author declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, analysis and manuscript writing were performed by TM.
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07299-9