Introduction and hypothesis
The study was aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of ring pessaries without support under continuous use without periodic removal or replacement for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women for 2 consecutive years.
This study was a prospective observational study. A total of 123 women were recruited in a tertiary hospital from January 2013 to January 2016. The primary objective was the percentage of patients maintaining the use of the pessary after 24 months. The secondary objectives were the reasons for discontinuation and the adverse events in patients with successful fittings.
A total of 115 patients (93.5%) had a successful fitting. Four patients died of non-pessary-related causes during the study and, one patient dropped out the follow-up so that finally, 110 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Pessary use was maintained by 91.8% of the women at the end of the study. The adverse events rate was low (27.0%). The two main factors of interruption in the pessary use were: age (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87–0.99) and history of urinary urge incontinence (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11–0.96]).
A high success rate and low adverse events rate were achieved in patients with advanced-stage POP with continuous pessary use for 24 months, indicating that a ring pessary could also be used without periodic removal for at least the first 2 years. This practice could reduce the number of control visits.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1160–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123819.
Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:277–85. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.107583.
Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Bump RC, Addison WA. A survey of pessary use by members of the American Urogynecologic Society. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:931–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00788-2
Giannini A, Russo E, Cano A, Chedraui P, Goulis DG, Lambrinoudaki I, et al. Current management of pelvic organ prolapse in aging women: EMAS clinical guide. Maturitas 2018;110:118–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.02.004
Khaja A, Freeman RM. How often should shelf/Gellhorn pessaries be changed? A survey of IUGA urogynaecologists. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:941–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2329-6.
De Albuquerque Coelho SC, de Castro EB, Juliato CR. Female pelvic organ prolapse using pessaries: systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1797–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2991-y.
Weber AM, Richter HE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:615–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000175832.13266.bb.
Manchana T. Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:391–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y.
Espuña M, Rebollo P, Puig M. Validación de la versión española del ICIQ-SF. Un cuestionario para evaluar la incontinencia urinaria. Med Clin (Barc). 2004;122:288–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-7753(04)74212-8.
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0.
Ding J, Chen C, Song XC, Zhang L, Deng M, Zhu L. Successful use of ring pessary with support for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1517–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2738-1.
Panman CM, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ, Burger H, Berger MY, Dekker JH. Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:307–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3107-4.
Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007;369:1027–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60462-0.
Markle D, Skoczylas L, Goldsmith C, Noblett K. Patient characteristics associated with a successful pessary fitting. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:249–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31822f00ae.
Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL. Risk factors associated with an unsuccessful pessary fitting trial in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:345–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.034.
Yang J, Han J, Zhu F, Wang Y. Ring and Gellhorn pessaries used in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study of 8 years. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298:623–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4844-z.
Cheung RYK, Lee LLL, Chung TKH, SSC C. Predictors for dislodgment of vaginal pessary within one year in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Maturitas. 2018;108:53–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.11.008.
Jones KA, Harmanli OZ. Pessary use in pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3:3–9. https://doi.org/10.3909/riog0110.
Nager CW, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Paraiso MF, Wu JM, Kenton K, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network (PFDN). Incontinence pessaries: size, POPQ measures, and successful fitting. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:1023–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0866-1.
Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH. Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG. 2009;116:1715–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02380.x.
Cheung RY, Lee JH, Lee LL, Chung TK, Chan SS. Vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:73–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001489.
Collins S, Beigi R, Mellen C, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas P. The effect of pessaries on the vaginal microenvironment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:60.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.024.
Ding J, Chen C, Song X, Zhang L, Deng M, Zhu L. Changes in prolapse and urinary symptoms after successful fitting of a ring pessary with support in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective study. Urology. 2016;87:70–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.07.025.
Gorti M, Hudelist G, Simons A. Evaluation of vaginal pessary management: a UK-based survey. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;29:129–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610902719813.
Haslam J. Nursing management of stress urinary incontinence women. Br J Nurs. 2004;13:32–40. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2004.13.1.11981.
Conflicts of interest
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Miceli, A., Fernández-Sánchez, M., Polo-Padillo, J. et al. Is it safe and effective to maintain the vaginal pessary without removing it for 2 consecutive years?. Int Urogynecol J 31, 2521–2528 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04240-5
- Advanced POP
- Ring pessary without support
- Continuous use