4.2 Article

Pessary types and discontinuation rates in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 993-997

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3228-9

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse; Pessary; Estrogen; Gellhorn pessary

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate factors associated with long-term pessary use in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This was a retrospective chart review of patients with POP of stage ae2 managed with a pessary. Patients were excluded if the date of fitting or follow-up was unavailable. Long-term use was defined as more than 1 year. Patient demographics, pessary fitting, and follow-up visit dates were collected. The primary end point was the duration of use and the prognostic impact of pessary type. Secondary objectives addressed other influencing factors including age, estrogen use, and prolapse stage. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. The final analysis included 311 patients. The mean (+/- standard deviation, SD) duration of pessary use was 7.0 +/- 0.72 years (median 5.7 years). Long-term use was found in 76 % (164) of these patients. Factors associated with longer use were age > 65 years (p = 0.004) and estrogen use (p = 0.048). The estimated mean (+/- SD) durations of use of the Gellhorn, open ring, ring with support, cube and donut pessaries were 10.5 +/- 0.7 years, 3.4 +/- 0.6 years, 1.8 +/- 0.2 years, 1.8 +/- 0.3 years and 1.7 +/- 0.5 years, respectively. The Gellhorn pessary was associated with significantly longer use than other pessary types (10.5 +/- 0.7, p < 0.0000001); this finding was independent of age, prolapse stage, hysterectomy, and vaginal estrogen use. In this retrospective analysis, the duration of use was longest with the Gellhorn pessary. Older age and vaginal estrogen use were associated with longer pessary use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available