Lucy Olson, Heather Winn, Irene Morcuende, Rene R Genadry, Joseph T Kowalski, Catherine S Bradley
{"title":"Self-care Pessary Management and Factors Associated With Long-Term Pessary Use.","authors":"Lucy Olson, Heather Winn, Irene Morcuende, Rene R Genadry, Joseph T Kowalski, Catherine S Bradley","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>There is limited evidence on predictors and complications of long-term pessary use and how outcomes vary by management strategy.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this study were to compare outcomes of pessary self-care (SC) versus office-based care (OC) and identify factors associated with long-term pessary use in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP).</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients fitted with a pessary for POP and with >3 months of use between 2008 and 2017. Patients were classified by pessary management strategy (SC vs. OC) and duration of use. Patient characteristics, complications, and reasons for discontinuation were compared between groups using bivariable and multivariable analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 275 patients who used a pessary for a median of 17.1 (range: 3-110) months. Of 268 with follow-up, 89 (33%), 107 (40%), and 72 (27%) used the pessary for <1 year, 1-<3 years, and ≥3 years, respectively. Most (77%) performed SC. SC users were healthier, younger, more sexually active, and had less advanced POP than OC users (all P ≤0.01). SC users had fewer space-occupying pessaries (61 (28.6%) vs 40 (64.5%), P <0.001), though many self-managed Gellhorn (n=50), cube (n=10) and donut (n=1) pessaries. SC users had a similar duration of use to OC users but fewer vaginal erosions and office visits (both P <0.001). Duration of use was not associated with management. In multivariable models, increasing age predicted longer use, and pulmonary disease predicted shorter use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cohort, the majority of patients were able to self-manage a pessary. Duration of use was associated with patient characteristics but not with management type.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":"1190-1198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001839","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: There is limited evidence on predictors and complications of long-term pessary use and how outcomes vary by management strategy.
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to compare outcomes of pessary self-care (SC) versus office-based care (OC) and identify factors associated with long-term pessary use in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Study design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients fitted with a pessary for POP and with >3 months of use between 2008 and 2017. Patients were classified by pessary management strategy (SC vs. OC) and duration of use. Patient characteristics, complications, and reasons for discontinuation were compared between groups using bivariable and multivariable analyses.
Results: The study included 275 patients who used a pessary for a median of 17.1 (range: 3-110) months. Of 268 with follow-up, 89 (33%), 107 (40%), and 72 (27%) used the pessary for <1 year, 1-<3 years, and ≥3 years, respectively. Most (77%) performed SC. SC users were healthier, younger, more sexually active, and had less advanced POP than OC users (all P ≤0.01). SC users had fewer space-occupying pessaries (61 (28.6%) vs 40 (64.5%), P <0.001), though many self-managed Gellhorn (n=50), cube (n=10) and donut (n=1) pessaries. SC users had a similar duration of use to OC users but fewer vaginal erosions and office visits (both P <0.001). Duration of use was not associated with management. In multivariable models, increasing age predicted longer use, and pulmonary disease predicted shorter use.
Conclusions: In this cohort, the majority of patients were able to self-manage a pessary. Duration of use was associated with patient characteristics but not with management type.
重要性:关于长期必要使用的预测因素和并发症以及结果如何因管理策略而变化的证据有限。目的:本研究的目的是比较盆腔器官脱垂(POP)患者盆腔器官脱垂(SC)与办公室护理(OC)的结果,并确定与长期使用盆腔器官脱垂(POP)相关的因素。研究设计:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象为2008年至2017年期间安装了POP托具并使用了bb30个月的患者。根据子宫管理策略(SC vs OC)和使用时间对患者进行分类。采用双变量和多变量分析比较两组患者特征、并发症和停药原因。结果:该研究纳入了275例使用托垫的患者,中位时间为17.1个月(范围:3-110个月)。在268名随访患者中,89人(33%)、107人(40%)和72人(27%)使用了子宫托。结论:在该队列中,大多数患者能够自我管理子宫托。使用时间与患者特征相关,但与管理类型无关。