International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 1797–1803 | Cite as

Female pelvic organ prolapse using pessaries: systematic review

  • Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Coelho
  • Edilson Benedito de Castro
  • Cássia Raquel Teatin JuliatoEmail author
Review Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of pessary use on the quality of life of women with pelvic organ prolapse, and to determine the satisfaction rate and rationale for discontinuation.


This review is recorded in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42015023384. The criteria for inclusion were observational study; cross section; cohort study; randomized controlled trial; study published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish; and study whose participants are women with female pelvic organ prolapse treated using a pessary. We did not include limitations on the year of publication. The criteria for exclusion included studies that did not include the topic, bibliographic or systematic reviews and articles that did not use validated questionnaires. The MeSH terms were “Pelvic Organ Prolapse AND Pessaries AND Quality of Life” OR “Pessary AND Quality of Life” OR “Pessaries”.


We found 89 articles. After the final analyses, seven articles were included. All articles associated pessary use with improved quality of life, and all used only validated questionnaires. Over half of the women continued using the pessary during the follow-up with acceptable levels of satisfaction. The main rationales for discontinuation were discomfort, pain in the area, and expulsion of the device.


This systematic review demonstrates that the pessary can produce a positive effect on women’s quality of life and can significantly improve sexual function and body perception.


Pelvic organ prolapse Pessaries Quality of life Sexual function Questionnaires 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conficts of interest



  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S (2005) P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(3):176–181, discussion 81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY (2001) The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(7):1496–1501, discussion 501–503Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiskind AK, Creighton SM, Stanton SL (1992) The incidence of genital prolapse after the Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167(2):399–404, discussion 405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kjølhede P, Norén B, Rydén G (1996) Prediction of genital prolapse after Burch colposuspension. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 75(9):849–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braekken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, Bø K (2010) Can pelvic floor muscle training reverse pelvic organ prolapse and reduce prolapse symptoms? An assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(2):170.e1–170.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McIntosh L (2005) The role of the nurse in the use of vaginal pessaries to treat pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence: a literature review. Urol Nurs 25(1):41–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M (2005) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(6):497–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woodman PJ, Swift SE, O’Boyle AL, Valley MT, Bland DR, Kahn MA et al (2006) Prevalence of severe pelvic organ prolapse in relation to job description and socioeconomic status: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(4):340–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manchana T (2011) Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284(2):391–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mutone MF, Terry C, Hale DS, Benson JT (2005) Factors which influence the short-term success of pessary management of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(1):89–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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(6):637–644CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162(11):777–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B et al (2016) ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69:225–234Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel M, Mellen C, O’Sullivan DM, LaSala CA (2010) Impact of pessary use on prolapse symptoms, quality of life, and body image. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(5):499.e1–499.e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mamik MM, Rogers RG, Qualls CR, Komesu YM (2013) Goal attainment after treatment in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209(5):488.e1–488.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhn A, Bapst D, Stadlmayr W, Vits K, Mueller MD (2009) Sexual and organ function in patients with symptomatic prolapse: are pessaries helpful? Fertil Steril 91(5):1914–1918CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cundiff GW, Amundsen CL, Bent AE, Coates KW, Schaffer JI, Strohbehn K et al (2007) The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(4):405.e1–405.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Rode MA, Craig EC, Gallegos KA, Montoya AR et al (2007) Pelvic floor symptom changes in pessary users. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(6):620.e1–620.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abdool Z, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver RS (2011) Prospective evaluation of outcome of vaginal pessaries versus surgery in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 22(3):273–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2015) One-year prospective comparison of vaginal pessaries and surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the validated ICIQ-VS and ICIQ-UI (SF) questionnaires. Int Urogynecol J 26(9):1305–1312Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fernando RJ, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Shah SM, Jones PW (2006) Effect of vaginal pessaries on symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 108(1):93–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chan SS, Cheung RY, Yiu KW, Lee LL, Pang AW, Chung TK (2012) Symptoms, quality of life, and factors affecting women’s treatment decisions regarding pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(8):1027–1033Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kapoor DS, Freeman RM (2009) Reoperation rate following prolapse surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(2):e15, author reply e15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bash KL (2000) Review of vaginal pessaries. Obstet Gynecol Surv 55(7):455–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL (2004) Patient satisfaction and changes in prolapse and urinary symptoms in women who were fitted successfully with a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(4):1025–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maito JM, Quam ZA, Craig E, Danner KA, Rogers RG (2006) Predictors of successful pessary fitting and continued use in a nurse-midwifery pessary clinic. J Midwifery Womens Health 51(2):78–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robert M, Schulz JA, Harvey MA, Lovatsis D, Walter JE, Chou Q et al (2013) Technical update on pessary use. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(7):664–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Coelho
    • 1
  • Edilson Benedito de Castro
    • 1
  • Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations