Cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy versus surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised non-inferiority controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy as an initial treatment option compared with surgery for moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms in secondary care from a healthcare and a societal perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 24-month follow-up. SETTING: 21 hospitals in the Netherlands, recruitment conducted between 2015 and 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1605 women referred to secondary care with symptomatic prolapse stage ≥2 were requested to participate. Of them, 440 women gave informed consent and were randomised to pessary therapy (n=218) or to surgery (n=222) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Pessary therapy and surgery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), a 7-point scale dichotomised into successful versus unsuccessful, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-3L; healthcare and societal costs were based on medical records and the institute for Medical Technology Assessment questionnaires. RESULTS: For the PGI-I, the mean difference between pessary therapy and surgery was -0.05 (95% CI -0.14; 0.03) and -0.03 (95% CI -0.07; 0.002) for QALYs. In total, 54.1% women randomised to pessary therapy crossed over to surgery, and 3.6% underwent recurrent surgery. Healthcare and societal costs were significantly lower in the pessary therapy (mean difference=-€1807, 95% CI -€2172; -€1446 and mean difference=-€1850, 95% CI -€2349; -€1341, respectively). The probability that pessary therapy is cost-effective compared with surgery was 1 at willingness-to-pay thresholds between €0 and €20 000/QALY gained from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of pessary therapy regarding the PGI-I could not be shown and no statistically significant differences in QALYs between interventions were found. Due to significantly lower costs, pessary therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with surgery as an initial treatment option for women with symptomatic POP treated in secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4883.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation.

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity. Design: A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants: Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking. Intervention: The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice. Allocation: Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre. Blinding: Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Outcomes: The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations. Conclusions: Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and distressing condition experienced by large numbers of women. Prolapse is when the organs that are usually in the pelvis drop down into the vagina. Women experience a feeling of something coming down into the vagina, along with bowel, bladder and sexual problems. One possible treatment is a vaginal pessary. The pessary is a device that is inserted into the vagina and holds the pelvic organs back in their usual place. Women who use a vaginal pessary usually come back to clinic every 6 months to have their pessary removed and replaced; this is called clinic-based care. However, it is possible for a woman to look after the pessary herself; this is called self-management. This study compared self-management with clinic-based care. Three hundred and forty women with prolapse took part; 171 received clinic-based care and 169 undertook self-management. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women in the self-management group received a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a telephone number for their local centre. Women in the clinic-based care group returned to clinic as advised by the treating healthcare professional. Self-management was found to be acceptable. Women self-managed their pessary in ways that suited their lifestyle. After 18 months, there was no difference between the groups in women's quality of life. Women in the self-management group experienced fewer pessary complications than women who received clinic-based care. Self-management costs less to deliver than clinic-based care. In summary, self-management did not improve women's quality of life more than clinic-based care, but it did lead to women experiencing fewer complications and cost less to deliver in the NHS. The findings support self-management as a treatment pathway for women using a pessary for prolapse.

Quality of Life after Treatment for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Real-World Study: Recommendations, Vaginal Pessary, and Surgery.

Background and Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, with its prevalence increasing with age, and can significantly impact the quality of life (QOL) of many individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the overall improvement, quality of life, and continuation of primary treatment for POP over a 24-month period in a real-world setting. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, observational, follow-up study of women with symptomatic POP who, as a primary treatment, opted for recommendations (lifestyle changes and pelvic floor muscle training), pessary therapy, or surgery. The primary outcome measure was a subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcome measures were the continuation rate of the primary treatment method, reason for discontinuation, and the quality of life evaluated with the P-QoL questionnaire. Results: We included 137 women, with 45 women (32.8%) in the recommendations group, 39 (28.5%) in the pessary group, and 53 women (38.7%) in the surgery group. After 24 months, surgery, in comparison with pessary treatment and recommendations, resulted in significantly more women reporting a subjective improvement: 89.6%, 66.7%, and 22.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall, 52% of women from the recommendations group and 36.4% from the pessary group switched to another treatment or discontinued the primary treatment within 24 months. However, women who continued the primary treatment, pessary use, and surgery showed similar subjective improvements (90.5% and 89.6%, respectively) and quality-of-life improvement. Conclusions: The chance of significant improvement was higher following surgery. However, after 24 months, both vaginal pessaries and surgery showed an important quality-of life improvement and can be proposed as primary treatment methods for pelvic organ prolapse.

Pelvic organ prolapse: self-management of pessaries can be a good option.

The studyHagen S, Kearney R, Goodman K, et al. Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial. eClinicalMedicine 2023;66:102326.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/pelvic-organ-prolapse-self-management-of-pessaries-can-be-a-good-option/.

Self-care of vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is no evidence about the efficacy of self-care of vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the adherence to pessary treatment among women who engage in self-management of their pessary. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and selected seven publications for inclusion in the analysis. RESULTS: Pooled continuation rate of self-cared vaginal pessary was the 76% (95%CI: 66-85%) with a I2-test of 93.3% (p < 0.001). Pooled conversion to POP surgery was the 12% (95%CI: 1-23%) with a I2-test of 96% (p < 0.001). Continuation rate was not statistically different between women who were treated by self-care and non-self-care management of vaginal pessary (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.96-1.27; p = 0.15), with a related I2-test of 37% (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Self-care vaginal pessary management presented a high continuation rate in women affected by pelvic organ prolapse at a long follow-up. The rate of conversion to surgical management of POP was low. No significant difference in continuation rate were highlighted between women who adopted the self-care or the clinical-based management of pessary.

An effective non-hormonal option with high tolerability for mild to moderate symptoms of vaginal dryness associated with menopause.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and tolerability of a non-hormonal pessary (that forms an oil-in-water emollient with the vaginal fluid) were assessed for the treatment of symptoms of vaginal dryness associated with menopause. STUDY DESIGN: Seventy-nine postmenopausal women (mean age 60.8 ± 6.5 years) with mild to moderate symptoms of vaginal dryness (including dyspareunia) were enrolled in this open-label, prospective, post-market clinical follow-up trial, conducted in 2022 by one research center in Germany. The investigational pessary was applied for the first 7 days once daily and the subsequent 31 days twice a week, at bedtime. A treatment-free period of 6 days completed the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: During the trial, participants filled out questionnaires that enabled the calculation of a total severity score for subjective symptoms of atrophy-related vaginal dryness and impairment of daily as well as sexual life. Furthermore, vaginal health index and safety were studied. RESULTS: A rapid and significant reduction in the severity scores for symptoms was observed over the 38-day course of treatment and beyond. Quality of life assessed by DIVA (day-to-day impact of vaginal aging) questionnaire, dyspareunia and vaginal health index also clearly improved. The tolerability was mainly rated as "good to very good" by the investigator and 94.9 % of participants. The vast majority were very satisfied with the simple and pleasant handling. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Overall, the presented data suggest that the investigated non-hormonal pessary is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for vaginal symptoms associated with dryness, thus improving quality of life for women, even those who are sexually active. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT05211505.

Vaginal pessary: a culprit for intraperitoneal bladder perforation.

Vaginal pessaries are widely considered to be a safe and effective non-surgical management option for women with pelvic organ prolapse. Complications may occur, and are more frequent with improper care and certain device designs and materials. It is imperative to provide information to patients about potential complications. We present the case of a woman in her 70s who presented to the Emergency Department with increasing groin and abdominal pain following a vaginal pessary insertion 2 days prior for grade 3 vaginal vault prolapse. On presentation, her abdomen was markedly distended with guarding. Laboratory investigations showed a significant acute kidney injury with a metabolic acidosis. An initial non-contrast CT showed fluid and inflammatory changes surrounding the bladder, and bladder perforation was suspected. A subsequent CT cystogram showed extravasation of contrast from the bladder into the peritoneal cavity, in keeping with an intraperitoneal bladder rupture. The patient underwent an emergency bladder repair in theatre.

A randomized clinical trial comparing internal and external pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women: A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Internal vaginal pessary is among the leading treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP); however, it has a high adverse event rate. An external pessary was recently developed as an alternative. The study's objective was to compare the efficacy of external and internal pessaries in treating POP in postmenopausal women. METHODS: This parallel randomized (1:1 ratio) open-blind study included 40 symptomatic women with stage 2 or 3 POP. They were randomized into two groups: group 1 (internal pessary) and group 2 (external pessary) (n = 20 in each); and evaluated at the start of and 3 months after the treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the results within and between the groups before and after the 3-month treatment. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous, except for the variables previous pregnancies (p = 0.030) and POP-Q score of apical prolapse (p = 0.023) whose values were higher in group 2. A significant improvement in quality of life was observed in both groups after 3 months of follow-up; however, internal pessaries were found to be more effective (p < 0.001). In group 1 there were differences between the initial and final POP-Q scores of anterior (0.004) and apical prolapse (p = 0.005). The complication rate associated with internal pessary use was high (p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggested that external pessaries have a similar effect to internal ones for the treatment of POP and improvement of the quality of life of postmenopausal women.

Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in women with a singleton pregnancy, a short cervix, and no history of spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation: open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone in the prevention of adverse perinatal outcomes and preterm birth in pregnant women of singletons with no prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation and who have a short cervix of 35 mm or less. DESIGN: Open label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: 20 hospitals and five obstetric ultrasound practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with a healthy singleton pregnancy and an asymptomatic short cervix of 35 mm or less between 18 and 22 weeks' gestation were eligible. Exclusion criteria were prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks, a cerclage in situ, maternal age of younger than 18 years, major congenital abnormalities, prior participation in this trial, vaginal blood loss, contractions, cervical length of less than 2 mm or cervical dilatation of 3 cm or more. Sample size was set at 628 participants. INTERVENTIONS: 1:1 randomisation to an Arabin cervical pessary or vaginal progesterone 200 mg daily up to 36 weeks' of gestation or earlier in case of ruptured membranes, signs of infection, or preterm labour besides routine obstetric care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was a composite adverse perinatal outcome. Secondary outcomes were rates of (spontaneous) preterm birth at less than 28, 32, 34, and 37 weeks. A predefined subgroup analysis was planned for cervical length of 25 mm or less. RESULTS: From 1 July 2014 to 31 March 2022, 635 participants were randomly assigned to pessary (n=315) or to progesterone (n=320). 612 were included in the intention to treat analysis. The composite adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 19 (6%) of 303 participants with a pessary versus 17 (6%) of 309 in the progesterone group (crude relative risk 1.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 2.2)). The rates of spontaneous preterm birth were not significantly different between groups. In the subgroup of cervical length of 25 mm or less, spontaneous preterm birth at less than 28 weeks occurred more often after pessary than after progesterone (10/62 (16%) v 3/69 (4%), relative risk 3.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.9)) and adverse perinatal outcomes seemed more frequent in the pessary group (15/62 (24%) v 8/69 (12%), relative risk 2.1 (0.95 to 4.6)). CONCLUSIONS: In women with a singleton pregnancy with no prior spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation and with a midtrimester short cervix of 35 mm or less, pessary is not better than vaginal progesterone. In the subgroup of a cervical length of 25 mm or less, a pessary seemed less effective in preventing adverse outcomes. Overall, for women with single baby pregnancies, a short cervix, and no prior spontaneous preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation, superiority of a cervical pessary compared with vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth and consecutive adverse outcomes could not be proven. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP, EUCTR2013-002884-24-NL).

Luteal phase support using micronized vaginal progesterone as pessaries or capsules in artificial cycles: is there any difference?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference between the proportion of patients with serum progesterone <8.8 ng/ml on the day of embryo transfer when micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support (LPS) is given as pessaries versus capsules? DESIGN: This retrospective, matched-cohort, single-centre study compared pessaries (Cyclogest) versus capsules (Utrogestan, Progeffik) for LPS in hormone replacement treatment-embryo transfer (HRT-ET) cycles. Patients under 50 years old with a triple-layer endometrial thickness of ≥6.5 mm underwent transfer of one or two blastocysts. Serum progesterone concentrations were measured on the day of transfer; patients with concentrations <8.8 ng/ml received a single 'rescue' dose of additional progesterone by subcutaneous injection. RESULTS: In total 2665 HRT-ET cycles were analysed; 663 (24.9%) used pessaries for LPS and 2002 (75.1%) used capsules. Mean serum progesterone concentrations with standard deviations on the day of embryo transfer were significantly higher in the group using MVP pessaries compared with those using capsules (14.5 ± 5.1 versus 13.0 ± 4.8 ng/ml; P = 0.000). The percentage of participants with suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer (<8.8 ng/ml) was significantly lower in the pessary group than the capsule group (10.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-12.6% versus 17.9%, 95% CI 16.2-19.6%; adjusted odds ratio 0.426, 95% CI 0.290-0.625; P = 0.000). No differences in pregnancy outcome were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using MVP pessaries rather than capsules for LPS resulted in significantly fewer patients having suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer. Consequently, almost 50% fewer patients in the pessary group needed rescue treatment.

Utility of cervical pessary in the prevention of preterm birth in triplet pregnancies: A single-center observational retrospective study of 165 triplet pregnancies.

OBJECTIVE: Premature births are a health problem arising in triplet pregnancies, resulting in high levels of morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utility of cervical pessaries in reducing prematurity (<34 weeks) in triplet pregnancies. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective case-control study regarding triplet pregnancies with follow-up at the La Paz University Hospital between 2000 and 2023. Maternal characteristics, obstetric and perinatal outcomes, and the use of cervical pessaries were examined. RESULTS: 165 triplet pregnancies were analyzed: 87 (52.7 %) in the case group (premature triplet pregnancies) and 78 in the control group (non-premature triplet pregnancies). A cervical pessary was inserted in 15 (17.2 %) triplet pregnancies in the case group and in 12 (16.7 %) triplet pregnancies in the control group (p = 0.92; OR = 1.04 (0.46-2.35)). A pessary was later inserted in the non-premature group (p = 0.01). The risk of preterm labor and the use of tocolytics ± glucocorticoids were found to be significantly more frequent in the premature group, with p = 0.01; OR = 2.30 (1.21-4.36) and p < 0.01; OR = 2.36 (1.23-4.44), respectively. Protocol-based cesarean sections were more frequent in the non-premature group (p < 0.01), while cesarean sections due to maternal complications (p < 0.01) and premature membrane rupture (p < 0.01) were more frequent in the premature group. CONCLUSION: The cervical pessary is not useful in preventing preterm births (< 34 weeks) in triplet pregnancies. It is likely that being pregnant with triplets is a powerful independent factor associated with prematurity, despite other pregnancy conditions. Women who are pregnant with triplets and at risk of preterm labor and those taking tocolytics ± glucocorticoids may benefit from pessary insertion.

Long-term continuations rate of ring pessary use for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term continuation rates, adverse events of ring pessary use at a minimum of 5 years follow-up, and factors associated with discontinuation in symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: Women with symptomatic POP who were treated with vaginal ring pessary and had successful fittings were included. Adverse events and reasons for discontinuation of pessary use were recorded. Patients who were lost to follow-up were defined as discontinuation. RESULTS: During 12 year-period, 239 of 329 POP patients (72.6%) had successful fittings with ring pessary. The mean age was 67.8 ± 8.9 years (range 27-86) and 70% of patients had advanced stage. The cumulative probability of continued ring pessary use was 84.1%, 64.4%, 49.3%, and 33.5%, at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Most common reason for discontinuation was frequent expulsion (21.6%), followed by vaginal erosion (16.5%), no prolapse improvement (12.4%), and inability or inconvenience to do self-care (9.3%). However, 9 patients (9.3%) had improvement of prolapse and were able to discontinue pessary insertion. Age above 70 years, wide introitus, and incapability of self-care are independent factors associated with long-term discontinuation. Adverse events occurred in 23.4% of patients, 18.8% of them had vaginal erosion, 11.7% vaginal discharge/infection, and 18.4% de novo SUI. However, no statistical significance existed between those who continued and discontinued pessary use due to these adverse events. CONCLUSION: Ring pessary is an effective treatment in symptomatic POP, with acceptable long-term continuation rates and minor adverse events. Self-care of pessary is very important aiming to minimize adverse events. Advanced age, wide introitus and incapability of self-care were associated factors for long-term discontinuation.

Prediction of Preterm Birth with the Uterocervical Angle in Singleton Pregnancies Treated with a Cervical Pessary.

BACKGROUND: Cervical pessaries are an established therapy option for patients at risk for spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB). The uterocervical angle (UCA) remains a promising sPTB predictor. However, its clinical significance has yet to be described in patients treated with a pessary. METHODS: This study analyzed data of patients treated with a pessary because of cervical shortening in singleton pregnancies. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to transvaginal ultrasound findings: the funneling group (n = 68) and the no-funneling group (n = 42). Moreover, we analyzed patients within these prespecified groups according to the UCA < 95° and ≥ 95°. RESULTS: Delivery occurred significantly earlier in patients treated with a pessary and with a high UCA ≥ 95°(p = 0.006). The median gestational age at delivery in patients treated with a pessary and with no funneling and a UCA < 95° vs. ≥ 95° were 39.00 and 36.14 weeks, respectively (p = 0.005). In cases with funneling and a UCA < 95° vs. ≥ 95° the mean gestational age at delivery was 38.14 and 38.07 weeks respectively (p=1,00). There was a significant negative linear correlation between UCA and the gestational age at delivery in all patients (p = 0.04), which was even profound in the group without funneling (p = 0.0002). However, we found no significant correlation between cervical length and gestational age at delivery in all patients (p = 0.42) as well as in the group without funneling (p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: In spite of pessary treatment, patients with UCA ≥ 95° presented with a higher risk of sPTB compared to patients with UCA < 95°. This suggests that the UCA seems to be a better predictor of sPTB than the cervical length in patients receiving pessary treatment.

The Impact of Vaginal Probiotics on Pessary Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Pessary-related adverse effects are common, and treatment options are limited. Probiotics may improve pessary-related adverse effects by altering the vaginal microenvironment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a vaginal probiotic suppository on the vaginal microenvironment among pessary users. STUDY DESIGN: Women who used pessaries were randomized to vaginal probiotic suppository use versus without use. The intervention was a vaginal probiotic suppository and moisturizing vaginal gel. The vaginal microenvironment was assessed using Gram stain and Nugent's criteria at baseline and 3 months by a microbiologist blinded to group allocation. Symptoms and experience with use of the probiotic were assessed using questionnaires. The primary outcome was change in lactobacilli count on Nugent subscore at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 147 postmenopausal women were randomized (86 to the intervention arm and 61 to the control arm), and 124 (87.9%) presented for a 3-month follow-up. There was no difference between the arms in age, race, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. A majority of participants had the pessary managed by the health care professional (intervention arm vs control arm, 46 [76.7%] vs 55 [68.8%]; P = 0.30). Composition of the vaginal microenvironment did not differ with or without probiotic treatment at 3 months. Bother from vaginal symptoms, including discharge, itching, and discomfort, did not differ between arms. Adverse effects from the intervention were minor, resolved with discontinuation, and occurred at 39.1%. CONCLUSION: Vaginal probiotic suppository use did not affect the composition of the vaginal microenvironment, patient satisfaction, or vaginal symptoms after 3 months of use in pessary users.

Patient experience of pain during vaginal pessary removal and insertion: a service evaluation study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem affecting women, but there is currently a lack of research focusing on patient experience of pessary changes. This study was aimed at capturing the patient perspective of pessary changes and formally assessing pain during pessary removal and insertion. METHODS: A service evaluation request was granted by South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust. Patients undergoing pessary change (ring, shelf, or Gellhorn) in gynaecology outpatient clinics over a 6-month period were asked to rate their pain scores on a ten-point numerical pain-rating scale. Other associated data were collected. RESULTS: Out of 213 women, 58.2% reported that pessary removal was more painful than insertion, 30.5% reported equal pain, and 10.8% reported that insertion was more painful than removal. Pain scores were significantly higher for removal (mean 4.37, median 4, IQR 4-7) than for insertion (mean 2.66, median 2, IQR 2-4, p <0.001). Ring pessaries were significantly less painful to both remove and insert than shelf and Gellhorn pessaries. Smaller pessaries were more painful to both remove and insert. There was no significant difference in pain scores reported by those with or without diagnosed vulval conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Pessary removal causes most women moderate pain, which should be communicated to patients beforehand. Ring pessaries are significantly less painful to change than other pessary types. Clinicians should consider pain as a factor in their decision-making surrounding pessary choice and when counselling patients. Future research should focus on ways to reduce pain during pessary removal.

Management of short cervix in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome: a role for pessary placement following fetoscopic laser surgery?

BACKGROUND: Preterm labor and delivery is a major concern for patients with twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome undergoing fetoscopic laser surgery. A preoperative short cervix is a risk factor for preterm labor. Pessary placement is a short-acting intervention that may be useful to reduce this adverse event. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between pessary placement and preterm delivery in monochorionic twin pregnancies with twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and a short cervix before fetoscopic laser surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study in 2 centers, including all pregnancies affected by twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome that underwent fetoscopic laser surgery with the Solomon technique between 2013 and 2022 (center A) and 2014 and 2022 (center B) with a preoperative cervical length below 25 mm. This study explored the correlation between cervical length and fetoscopic laser surgery-to-delivery interval following active or expectant management and compared perinatal outcomes between patients managed expectantly and patients managed with pessary placement, using multivariate analysis to control for potential confounders. Patients with a cervical length below 5 mm were not included in the comparative analysis. RESULTS: Of 685 patients, 134 met the inclusion criteria. Moreover, 21 patients were treated with a cervical cerclage and excluded from the analysis, leaving 113 patients for the final analysis. There was a significant negative correlation between cervical length at fetoscopic laser surgery and the risk of early delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.81; P<.001). The use of a pessary correlated with fewer patients delivering before 28 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.75), fewer double neonatal demise (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.75). Posthoc subgroup analysis suggested that these improvements were essentially noticeable for cervical lengths between 5 and 18 mm, where pessary placement was associated with an increased fetoscopic laser surgery-to-delivery interval (+24 days; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-42; P=.042) and later gestational age at delivery (+3.3 weeks; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-42; P=.035). CONCLUSION: Patients with a moderately shortened cervix, between 5 and 18 mm, may benefit from pessary placement after fetoscopic surgery for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, resulting in a reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes, double neonatal demise, and severe preterm delivery.

Outcomes in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse Presenting With Pessary-Related Complications.

IMPORTANCE: There is currently a paucity of data describing the outcomes of women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and/or urinary incontinence (UI) who present with pessary-related complications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe outcomes in women with POP and UI managed with a pessary who present with pessary-related complications. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with POP and/or UI who elected for management with a pessary from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Patients were included if they had used a pessary for at least 1 year and had a documented pessary-related complication. Complications were defined a priori, and patient charts were abstracted using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions codes associated with pessary use. RESULTS: Of 2,088 of women receiving pessary care, 444 (21%) experienced a complication. Of 154 of women, 34.6% experienced 2 pessary-related complications during the study period, whereas 12.6% (56) experienced 3, 4.5% (20) experienced 4, and 1.8% (8) experienced 5. One hundred fifty-two patients (34.2%) underwent surgery during the study period to manage their POP and/or UI. Patients who were older were less likely to have surgery (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.90]; P = 0.002), and patients who had an indication of pessary use for both POP and UI were more likely to undergo surgery during the study period (adjusted odds ratio, 2.12 [95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.48]; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 1 in 5 patients has a documented complication associated with pessary use of greater than 1 year. Of these patients, one third will eventually undergo surgery for management of their POP and/or UI.

Outcomes of pessary fitting trials for patients with stage IV pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of pessaries in the treatment of stage IV pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and identify the influencing factors. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients with stage IV symptomatic POP were admitted to the hospital for pessary fitting. A successful pessary fitting was defined as a patient fitted with a pessary at the initial fitting in whom use continued 2 weeks later. The rates of successful pessary fitting, patient satisfaction, remission of prolapse and urinary symptoms, and the occurrence of factors associated with successful pessary fitting were calculated and predictors of appropriate pessary type selection were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients with stage IV POP had a successful pessary fitting (82.8%). The satisfaction rate associated with the two types of pessaries was more than 90%. The success rate among patients undergoing a ring pessary fitting trial was 44.6%, and 84.3% of the patients were self-managed. Prolapse symptoms significantly improved in 90% of cases, and urinary symptoms improved in 58-93% of cases from baseline. The number of vaginal deliveries, history of hysterectomy and vaginal introitus/total vaginal length (TVL) ratio were independent risk factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting. CONCLUSION: For patients with stage IV POP, the successful fitting rate is as high as 80% or more. More vaginal deliveries, a history of hysterectomy, and a larger vaginal introitus/TVL ratio (ratio >0.6) were predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting.

Analysis of questions by patients with pelvic organ prolapse about vaginal pessaries resulting in a checklist for their physicians.

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend vaginal pessaries as a first-choice treatment of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Gynecologists rarely receive systematic training or just do not take the time to communicate with their patients. We hypothesized that we could identify key deficits and limitations of counseling before or during pessary therapy from questions directed to manufacturers with the aim to improve and promote health literacy of women with POP. METHODS: We approached five manufacturers to provide anonymized inquiries related to pessary use. After exclusion of duplicates and questions about obstetric pessaries, 174 data sets from 145 patients remained. RESULTS: In 19/145 patients (13.1%), a 2nd degree, and in 94/145 (64.8%), a 3rd-4th degree of POP was identified. Four patients had additional urinary incontinence. In 32/145 (22.1%), the severity of POP could not be identified. The age of patients ranged from 27 to 98 (mean = 63.7) years. Most inquiries were related to the selected pessary models or sizes (40/174; 22.9%), self-management (20/174; 11.5%), and technical aspects such as shelf life or appropriate cleaning (26/174; 14.9%). Pain or voiding dysfunction was present in 17/174 remarks (9.7%). Lifestyle questions related to the use of pessaries during sport, menstruation, or mechanical anticonception. The cube pessary was in the focus of interest followed by the sieve bowl, urethra, ring, and Gellhorn device. The list of questions was summarized as a checklist stratified according to priorities. CONCLUSION: The checklist should help improve counseling and self-management of patients to optimize the benefit/risk ratio of conservative treatment of pelvic floor diseases.

Cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth and poor neonatal outcome: An integrity meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials focusing on adherence to the European Medical Device Regulation.

BACKGROUND: Findings from randomized trials (RCTs) on cervical pessary treatment to prevent spontaneous preterm birth are inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: Our hypothesis suggests that adhering to the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and following the instructions for use are essential prerequisites for successful therapy. Conversely, the non-adherence to these guidelines will probably contribute to its failure. SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Based on validated criteria from integrity assessments we performed a systematic review identifying 14 RCTs evaluating the effect of cervical pessaries. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We analyzed the implications of 14 criteria each accounting for 0-2 points of a score reflecting the clinical evaluation plan (CEP) as proposed by the MDR to evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of medical devices. MAIN RESULTS: Seven RCTs in each singleton and twin pregnancies (5193 "cases") were included, detecting a high heterogeneity within control groups (I2 = 85% and 87%, respectively, P < 0.01). The CEP score varied from 11 to 26 points for all studies. The most common reasons for low scores and potential data compromise were poor recruitment rates, no (completed) power analysis, and no pre-registration, but mainly non-adherence to technical, biological, and clinical equivalence to the instructions for use as required by the MDR. All trials with score values greater than 20 had applied audit procedures. Within this group we found significantly reduced rates of spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34 weeks within the pessary group in singleton (odds ratio 0.28; 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.65) and twin pregnancies (odds ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.67). Similarly, there was a significant reduction in the composite poor neonatal outcome in singleton (odds ratio 0.25; 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.61) and twin pregnancies (odds ratio 0.54; 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.82) after a pessary as compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Non-audited RCTs and meta-analyses mixing studies of different clinical quality as pre-defined by a CEP and the MDR pose the risk for erroneous conclusions.