Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim of this study is to establish whether the presence of severe symptoms influences women’s choice of pessaries or surgery for uterovaginal prolapse.
Methods
This is a prospective study using the validated Sheffield Prolapse Symptoms Questionnaire.
Results
Women choosing surgery (n = 251) were younger (58 versus 66 years), more bothered by dragging lower abdominal pain (33% versus 25%, P = 0.04), need for vaginal digitation (8% versus 3%, P = 0.02), and incomplete bowel emptying (27% versus 19%, P = 0.01) than women choosing pessaries (n = 429). More women opting for surgery were sexually active (51% versus 29%, P < 0.0001), perceived avoidance of sex due to prolapse (28% versus 17%, P = 0.000), and perceived prolapse interfering with sexual satisfaction as a severe problem (26% versus 15%, P = 0.000).
Conclusions
Nearly two thirds of women with symptomatic prolapse initially opted for conservative management. Women choosing surgery over pessaries for treatment of prolapse describe more severe symptoms related to bowel emptying, sexual function, and quality of life and are bothered by them.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506
Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 98:646
Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xia Z, Peterson HB (1994) Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol 83:549–555
Pott-Grinstein E, Newcomer JR (2001) Gynecologist’s patterns of prescribing pessaries. J Reprod Med 46:205–208
Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Bump RC, Addison WA (2000) A survey of pessary use by members of the American urogynecologic society. Obstet Gynecol 95:931–935
Heit M, Rosenquist C, Culligan P, Graham C, Murphy M, Shott SS (2003) Predicting treatment choice for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101:1279–1284
Weber AM (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomised trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1306
Hullfish KL, Bovbjerg VE, Gibson J, Steers WD (2002) Patient-centred goals for pelvic floor dysfunction surgery: what is success and is it achieved? Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:88–92
Lowenstein L, Fitzgerald MP, Kenton K, Dooley Y, Templehof M, Mueller ER, Brubaker L (2008) Patient-selected goals: the fourth dimension in assessment of pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:81–84
Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, Fitzgerald MP, Shott S, Brubaker L (2003) Patient-selected goals: a new perspective on surgical outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1551–1557
Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL (2004) Risk factors associated with an unsuccessful pessary fitting trial in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:345–350
Hullfish KL, Bovbjerg VE, Steers WD (2004) Patient-centred goals for pelvic floor dysfunction surgery: long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:201–205
Bradshaw HD, Hiller L, Farkas AG, Radley S, Radley SC (2006) Development and psychometric testing of a symptom index for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol 26:241–252
Novi JM, Jeronis S, Morgan MA, Arya LA (2005) Sexual function in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared to women without pelvic organ prolapse. J Urol 173:1669–1672
Brincat C, Kenton K, Fitzgerald MP, Brubaker L (2004) Sexual activity predicts continued pessary use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:198–200
Fernando RJ, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Shah SM, Jones PW (2006) Effect of vaginal pessaries on symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 108:93–99
Handa VL, Zyczynski HM, Brubaker L et al (2007) Sexual function before and after sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:629.e1–629.e6
Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak DN, Barber MD, Olsen AL (2007) Posterior repair and sexual function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:101.e1–101.e6
Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771
Barber MD, Visco AG, Wyman JF, Fantl JA, Bump RC, Continence Program for Women Research Group (2002) Sexual function in women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 99:281–289
Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR (2000) Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1610–1615
Pauls RN, Silva WA, Rooney CM et al (2007) Sexual function after vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:622.e1–622.e7
Kahn MA, Stanton SL (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: it’s effect on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:82–86
Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE (2001) Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1332–1338
Fialkow MF, Gardella C, Melville J, Lentz GM, Fenner DE (2002) Posterior vaginal wall defects and their relation to measurements of pelvic floor neuromuscular dysfunction and posterior compartment symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1443–1448
Weber AM, Walters MD, Schover LR (1995) Sexual function in women with uterovaginal prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 85:483–487
Conflicts of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kapoor, D.S., Thakar, R., Sultan, A.H. et al. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice?. Int Urogynecol J 20, 1157–1161 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0930-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0930-x