The cube pessary: an underestimated treatment option for pelvic organ prolapse? Subjective 1-year outcomes


Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition. The use of pessaries for conservative management of POP is widespread. However, there are little data on the use of cube pessaries. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether self-therapy with the use of vaginal cube pessaries in women with POP can be a well-tolerated, first-line treatment.


In a prospective case series, 87 women who suffered from symptomatic POP, stages II–IV, were instructed in self-treatment with a vaginal cube pessary. Differences were analyzed using Wilcoxon’s rank sum test or Fisher’s exact test.


A pessary could be fitted in 84/87 patients (96.6 %); 6 women were lost to follow-up. The remaining 78 patients (92.9 %, median age 60 years) completed the study. Sixteen women (20.5 %) chose not to continue with the pessary treatment. For these patients, general well-being decreased from a median numeric rating score (NRS) of 4.5 (3–6) to 2.0 (1–3, p < 0.001). In those who continued treatment, general well-being increased from a median NRS of 3.0 (2–5) to 8.0 (7–10, p < 0.001) after 1 year of use. The majority of patients (53) in the present study rated pessary self-care use as “very easy” or “easy” (85.5 %). The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) was 2.0 (1–3) at follow-up examination. There were no complications or adverse effects of pessary use.


Conservative self-treatment with vaginal cube pessaries might be a feasible treatment option for women who suffer from POP.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. 1.

    Chaliha C (2009) Postpartum pelvic floor trauma. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21:474–479

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369:1027–1038

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Machin SE, Mukhopadhyay S (2011) Pelvic organ prolapse: review of the aetiology, presentation, diagnosis and management. Menopause Int 17:132–136

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R (2009) Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1157–1161

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Oliver R, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2011) The history and usage of the vaginal pessary: a review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 156:125–130

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Handa VL, Jones M (2002) Do pessaries prevent the progression of pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13:349–352

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Adams E, Thomson A, Maher C, Hagen S (2004) Mechanical devices for pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD004010

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Rode MA, Craig EC, Gallegos KA, Montoya AR, Swartz CD (2007) Pelvic floor symptom changes in pessary users. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:620.e1–620.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Weber AM, Richter HE (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 106:615–634

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Atnip SD (2009) Pessary use and management for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 36:541–563

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN, International Urogynecological Association; International Continence Society (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bai SW, Yoon BS, Kwon JY, Shin JS, Kim SK, Park KH (2005) Survey of the characteristics and satisfaction degree of the patients using a pessary. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:182–186

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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 190:1025–1029

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:523–528

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Nager CW, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Paraiso MF, Wu JM, Kenton K, Atnip SD, Spino C, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) (2009) Incontinence pessaries: size, POPQ measures, and successful fitting. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1023–1028

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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 51:78–84

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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 193:89–94

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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 22:273–278

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH (2009) Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG 116:1715–1721

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    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 91:1914–1918

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Nemeth Z, Ott J (2011) Complete recovery of severe postpartum genital prolapse after conservative treatment—a case report. Int Urogynecol J 22:1467–1469

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jones K, Yang L, Lowder JL, Meyn L, Ellison R, Zyczynski HM, Moalli P, Lee T (2008) Effect of pessary use on genital hiatus measurements in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 112:630–636

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest


Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Ott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nemeth, Z., Nagy, S. & Ott, J. The cube pessary: an underestimated treatment option for pelvic organ prolapse? Subjective 1-year outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 24, 1695–1701 (2013).

Download citation


  • Uterine descensus
  • Cystocele
  • Pessary
  • Conservative treatment
  • Pelvic floor insufficiency