International Urogynecology Consultation Chapter 3 Committee 1 - Pessary Management.

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: This manuscript is part of the International Urogynecological Consultation (IUC) on Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), Chapter 3, Committee 1 focusing on pessary management of POP.

Methods: A narrative review was conducted by an international, multi-disciplinary group of clinicians working in the field of pelvic health following a search of the literature using the MeSH terms "pelvic organ prolapse" OR "urogenital prolapse" OR "vaginal prolapse" OR "uterovaginal prolapse" AND "pessary" OR "support device" OR "intravaginal device." Relevant studies, as determined after review using the Covidence manuscript review platform, were included.

Results: A total of 540 articles were reviewed, of which 313 were included for this narrative review. The reported pessary fitting success rate ranges from 41% to 96.6%, and the continuation of successful use rate varied from 21% to 97.7%. The most likely predictors of unsuccessful fitting trials were previous POP surgery, previous hysterectomy, short vaginal length, wide genital hiatus, and posterior compartment involvement. Following successful pessary placement in individuals with POP, vaginal bulge and pressure resolved in over 90%. A significant improvement in obstructive voiding was reported in 40-97% of participants, urinary urgency in 38%, urgency urinary incontinence in 29-77%, and stress urinary incontinence in 9-45%. Older age and women who can self-manage the pessary care or had family support were factors associated with pessary continuation. Common reasons reported for discontinuation included expulsion, vaginal pain/discomfort, unwillingness to continue, erosions, desire for surgery, bleeding, symptoms not improved with pessary, and incontinence. More serious complications (fistula, bowel obstruction, pessary impaction, and vaginal cancer) are rare, and occur usually in older women in whom pessary maintenance has been neglected. There is no high-quality evidence to guide pessary choice. The current literature lacks studies specifically focused on determining the role of preventative measures, i.e., estrogen, pessary type/material as regards to pessary-associated complications (PACs). The review identified a lack of information about the relevant and required training and education (for healthcare professionals and patients) for pessary provision, use, and management.

Conclusions: There is a considerable body of published work on the use of pessaries for POP, including effectiveness, factors associated with success and failure, and complications. However, there is a dearth of published literature regarding how pessary types are selected by providers, how providers are trained, what defines competency in pessary provision, and what constitutes appropriate patient education related to pessary use and management.