Successful use of ring pessary with support for advanced pelvic organ prolapse
- 479 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Support pessaries are not recommended for patients with advanced prolapse. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of the ring pessary with support for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
We conducted this prospective study on pessary fittings performed between November 2013 and September 2014 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Beijing. A total of 109 patients with stage III or IV POP completed a detailed history. A successful fitting was defined as the continued use of the device for over 3 months from the initial fitting. Data were analyzed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, independent sample t tests, continuity correction χ2 tests, and Fisher’s exact test.
A total of 74.3 % (81/109) of the patients were successfully fitted with the ring pessary with support at the initial visit. Among those women with a successful initial fitting, the failure rate was less than 10 % (8/81) at 3 months. Furthermore, 82.7 % (67/81) of the patients were able to manage the pessary by themselves. Seven patients experienced vaginal erosion. There was no association of prolapse stage and the predominant prolapse compartment with pessary trial outcome. The average vaginal length of the patients with successful pessary use was 7.58 cm.
The ring pessary with support was successfully fitted in patients with advanced POP with a high success rate and few complications. Older patients were more likely to prefer the ring pessary with support due to its convenient use.
KeywordsRing pessary with support Successfully Advanced pelvic organ prolapse
We thank all of the patients for agreeing to participate in our study.
Conflicts of interest
- 1.DeLancey JOL (2005) The hidden epidemic of pelvic floor dysfunction: achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1488–1495. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.02.028
- 3.Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Bump RC, Addision WA (2000) A survey of pessary use by members of the American Urogynecologic Society. Obstet Gynecol 95:931–935. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00788-2
- 6.Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0
- 14.Heit M, Rosenquist C, Culligan P, Graham C, Murphy M, Shott S (2003) Predicting treatment choice for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101:1279–1284. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00359-4
- 16.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. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.034
- 19.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. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.012