Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Female pelvic organ prolapse using pessaries: systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of pessary use on the quality of life of women with pelvic organ prolapse, and to determine the satisfaction rate and rationale for discontinuation.

Methods

This review is recorded in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42015023384. The criteria for inclusion were observational study; cross section; cohort study; randomized controlled trial; study published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish; and study whose participants are women with female pelvic organ prolapse treated using a pessary. We did not include limitations on the year of publication. The criteria for exclusion included studies that did not include the topic, bibliographic or systematic reviews and articles that did not use validated questionnaires. The MeSH terms were “Pelvic Organ Prolapse AND Pessaries AND Quality of Life” OR “Pessary AND Quality of Life” OR “Pessaries”.

Results

We found 89 articles. After the final analyses, seven articles were included. All articles associated pessary use with improved quality of life, and all used only validated questionnaires. Over half of the women continued using the pessary during the follow-up with acceptable levels of satisfaction. The main rationales for discontinuation were discomfort, pain in the area, and expulsion of the device.

Conclusion

This systematic review demonstrates that the pessary can produce a positive effect on women’s quality of life and can significantly improve sexual function and body perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S (2005) P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(3):176–181, discussion 81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY (2001) The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(7):1496–1501, discussion 501–503

  4. Wiskind AK, Creighton SM, Stanton SL (1992) The incidence of genital prolapse after the Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 167(2):399–404, discussion 405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kjølhede P, Norén B, Rydén G (1996) Prediction of genital prolapse after Burch colposuspension. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 75(9):849–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Braekken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, Bø K (2010) Can pelvic floor muscle training reverse pelvic organ prolapse and reduce prolapse symptoms? An assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(2):170.e1–170.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McIntosh L (2005) The role of the nurse in the use of vaginal pessaries to treat pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence: a literature review. Urol Nurs 25(1):41–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M (2005) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(6):497–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Woodman PJ, Swift SE, O’Boyle AL, Valley MT, Bland DR, Kahn MA et al (2006) Prevalence of severe pelvic organ prolapse in relation to job description and socioeconomic status: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(4):340–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Manchana T (2011) Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284(2):391–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(1):89–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(6):637–644

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162(11):777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B et al (2016) ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69:225–234

  15. Patel M, Mellen C, O’Sullivan DM, LaSala CA (2010) Impact of pessary use on prolapse symptoms, quality of life, and body image. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(5):499.e1–499.e4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mamik MM, Rogers RG, Qualls CR, Komesu YM (2013) Goal attainment after treatment in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209(5):488.e1–488.e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(5):1914–1918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cundiff GW, Amundsen CL, Bent AE, Coates KW, Schaffer JI, Strohbehn K et al (2007) The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(4):405.e1–405.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Rode MA, Craig EC, Gallegos KA, Montoya AR et al (2007) Pelvic floor symptom changes in pessary users. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(6):620.e1–620.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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(3):273–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2015) One-year prospective comparison of vaginal pessaries and surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the validated ICIQ-VS and ICIQ-UI (SF) questionnaires. Int Urogynecol J 26(9):1305–1312

  22. 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(1):93–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chan SS, Cheung RY, Yiu KW, Lee LL, Pang AW, Chung TK (2012) Symptoms, quality of life, and factors affecting women’s treatment decisions regarding pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(8):1027–1033

  24. Kapoor DS, Freeman RM (2009) Reoperation rate following prolapse surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(2):e15, author reply e15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bash KL (2000) Review of vaginal pessaries. Obstet Gynecol Surv 55(7):455–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(4):1025–1029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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(2):78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Robert M, Schulz JA, Harvey MA, Lovatsis D, Walter JE, Chou Q et al (2013) Technical update on pessary use. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(7):664–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil

    Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Coelho & Edilson Benedito de Castro

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Rua Alexander Fleming, 101, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, 13083-881

    Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato

Authors
  1. Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Coelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edilson Benedito de Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato.

Ethics declarations

Conficts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Albuquerque Coelho, S.C., de Castro, E.B. & Juliato, C.R.T. Female pelvic organ prolapse using pessaries: systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 27, 1797–1803 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2991-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2991-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation