Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2018 | Original Article

Primary treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: pessary use versus prolapse surgery

Authors: Anne-Lotte W. M. Coolen, Stephanie Troost, Ben Willem J. Mol, Jan- Paul W. R. Roovers, Marlies Y. Bongers

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to compare the functional outcomes after pessary treatment and after prolapse surgery as primary treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study performed in a Dutch teaching hospital in women with symptomatic POP of stage II or higher requiring treatment. Patients were treated according to their preference with a pessary or prolapse surgery. The primary endpoint was disease-specific quality of life at 12 months follow-up according to the prolapse domain of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and additional interventions. To show a difference of ten points in the primary outcome, we needed to randomize 80 women (power 80%, α 0.05, taking 10% attrition into account).

Results

We included 113 women (74 in the pessary group, 39 in the surgery group). After 12 months, the median prolapse domain score was 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0–33) in the pessary group and 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0–0) in the surgery group (p < 0.01). Differences in other domain scores were not statistically significant. In the pessary group, 28% (21/74) of the women had a surgical intervention versus 3% (1/39) reoperations in the surgery group (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

In women with POP of stage II or higher undergoing surgery, prolapse symptoms were less severe than in those who were treated with a pessary, but 72% of women who were treated with a pessary did not opt for surgery.

Trial registration number: Dutch trial register NTR2856.

Slieker-ten Hove MC, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:1037–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRefPubMed

Richter HE, Burgio KL, Brubaker L, Nygaard IE, Ye W, Weidner A, et al. Continence pessary compared with behavioral therapy or combined therapy for stress incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(3):609–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Atnip SD. Pessary use and management for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2009;36(3):541–63.CrossRefPubMed

Thys SD, Roovers JP, Geomini PM, Bongers MY. Do patients prefer a pessary or surgery as primary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;74:6–12.CrossRefPubMed

Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V. The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity to symptoms and quality of life. BJOG. 2005;112:971–6.CrossRefPubMed

Fernando RJ, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Shah SM, Jones PW. Effect of vaginal pessaries on symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(1):93–9.CrossRefPubMed

Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Rode MA, Craig EC, Gallegos KA, Montoya AR, Swartz CD. Pelvic floor symptom changes in pessary users. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:620.e1–6.CrossRef

Kuhn A, Bapst D, Stadlmayr W, Vits K, Mueller MD. Sexual and organ function in patients with symptomatic prolapse: are pessaries helpful? Fertil Steril. 2009;5:1914–8.CrossRef

10.

Lamers BH, Broekman BM, Milani AL. Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:637–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Abdool Z, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver RS. Prospective evaluation of outcome of vaginal pessaries versus surgery in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:273–8.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Broens-Oostveen MC, Mom RM, Lagro-Janssen AL. Genital prolapse; treatment and course in four general practices. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2004;148(29):1444–8.PubMed

13.

Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH. Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG. 2009;116(13):1715–21.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH. 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. 2015;26:1305–12.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø 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(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP. Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the Urogenital Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(2):97–104.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Roovers JP, van der Bom JG, van der Vaart CH. Hysterectomy does not cause constipation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(7):1068–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, Heintz AP. A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111:50–6.CrossRef

19.

Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Nager CW, Barber MD. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2358–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL. 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. 2004;190(4):1025–9.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bai SW, Yoon BS, Kwon JY, Shin JS, Kim SK, Park KH. Survey of the characteristics and satisfaction degree of the patients using a pessary. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16(3):182–6.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Primary treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: pessary use versus prolapse surgery
Authors: Anne-Lotte W. M. Coolen
Stephanie Troost
Ben Willem J. Mol
Jan- Paul W. R. Roovers
Marlies Y. Bongers
Publication date: 01-01-2018
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3372-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Primary treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: pessary use versus prolapse surgery

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

The retropubic sling more precisely restores the urethral closure mechanisms

Re: Does body mass index influence the outcome of midurethral sling procedures for stress urinary incontinence?

A randomized, nonblinded extension study of single-incision versus transobturator midurethral sling in women with stress urinary incontinence

Reply to letter to the editor re: Does body mass index influence the outcome of midurethral sling procedures for stress urinary incontinence?

Advanced uterovaginal prolapse: is vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty as effective as in lesser degrees of prolapse?

Management of post-midurethral sling voiding dysfunction. International Urogynecological Association research and development committee opinion