Is it safe and effective to maintain the vaginal pessary without removing it for 2 consecutive years?


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.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Khaja A, Freeman RM. How often should shelf/Gellhorn pessaries be changed? A survey of IUGA urogynaecologists. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:941–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Weber AM, Richter HE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:615–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Manchana T. Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:391–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007;369:1027–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Jones KA, Harmanli OZ. Pessary use in pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH. Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG. 2009;116:1715–21.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gorti M, Hudelist G, Simons A. Evaluation of vaginal pessary management: a UK-based survey. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;29:129–31.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Haslam J. Nursing management of stress urinary incontinence women. Br J Nurs. 2004;13:32–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information




A.M. and M.F.-S. were involved in the data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, statistical analysis, and critical revision of the manuscript; J.P.-P. carried out the design of the statistical analysis and revision of the manuscript; J.-L. D.-D. was responsible for the study design, clinical assistance with patients, data collection, entry data analysis, and manuscript preparation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José-Luis Dueñas-Díez.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest


Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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).

Download citation


  • Advanced POP
  • Ring pessary without support
  • Continuous use
  • Efficacy
  • Safety