How often should ring pessaries be removed or changed in women with advanced POP? A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ring pessaries under continuous use for > 2 years. Our starting hypothesis was that their use without periodic removal, cleaning or replacement for between 24 to 48 months after insertion is safe and effective. METHODS: This was a prospective observational and descriptive study. One hundred one women who successfully completed the 24 first months of continuous use of a ring pessary were included and monitored for another 24 months. The objectives were to establish the percentage of patients maintaining its use 48 months after insertion, the reasons for discontinuation and the adverse events. Another purpose of this study was to determine the timing of replacement of the vaginal pessary in long-term users. RESULTS: Of the women, 92.1% (93/101) had successful pessary use, and it was discontinued by three patients (2.9%, 3/101); 76.2% (77/101) of the women continued pessary use after the end of the study, and in 16 (15.8%, 16/101) patients, after pessary removal, the prolapse disappeared and did not recur. Forty-five women (48.4%, 45/93) presented some adverse events that required temporary pessary removal. The most common one was an increase in vaginal discharge (73.3%, 33/45). In four women (8.9%, 4/45), the ring pessary was detected embedded in the vaginal epithelium. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous use of a ring pessary can be recommended for 2 years in hysterectomized women and for 4 years in non-hysterectomized women if there are no complications.

Is it safe and effective to maintain the vaginal pessary without removing it for 2 consecutive years?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The study was aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of ring pessaries without support under continuous use without periodic removal or replacement for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women for 2 consecutive years. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational study. A total of 123 women were recruited in a tertiary hospital from January 2013 to January 2016. The primary objective was the percentage of patients maintaining the use of the pessary after 24 months. The secondary objectives were the reasons for discontinuation and the adverse events in patients with successful fittings. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients (93.5%) had a successful fitting. Four patients died of non-pessary-related causes during the study and, one patient dropped out the follow-up so that finally, 110 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. Pessary use was maintained by 91.8% of the women at the end of the study. The adverse events rate was low (27.0%). The two main factors of interruption in the pessary use were: age (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99) and history of urinary urge incontinence (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: A high success rate and low adverse events rate were achieved in patients with advanced-stage POP with continuous pessary use for 24 months, indicating that a ring pessary could also be used without periodic removal for at least the first 2 years. This practice could reduce the number of control visits.

Epistaxis grave durante el embarazo, resistente al tratamiento: reporte de un caso y revisión bibliográfica / Refractory severe epistaxis during pregnancy: a case report and a literature review

Resumen ANTECEDENTES: La epistaxis durante el embarazo, aparte de ser una urgencia, tiene una prevalencia tres veces superior a la de la población general. Se controla con medidas conservadoras, aunque a veces deben indicarse tratamientos que implican intervenciones quirúrgicas. CASO CLÍNICO: Paciente de 37 años, con embarazo de 37 semanas, que acudió a Urgencias por epistaxis, sin reacción a las técnicas conservadoras (taponamiento nasal de diversa índole), que provocó anemia progresiva y requirió ligadura de la arteria esfenopalatina para detener el sangrado. Enseguida se llevó a cabo la cesárea, indicada por rotura prematura de membranas e imposibilidad de realizar la maniobra de Valsalva; nació un varón con Apgar 9-10-10. La paciente continuó con alteraciones en la anatomía de los senos paranasales debido a la intervención quirúrgica y en seguimiento en consulta de Otorrinolaringología. CONCLUSIONES: La epistaxis, aunque es un evento frecuente durante el embarazo, puede afectar a la madre y su hijo; por tanto, es importante conocer los tratamientos disponibles al respecto, notificar los nuevos casos y el tratamiento para aumentar el conocimiento de esta alteración infrecuente pero grave.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is a frequent emergency, which prevalence during pregnancy is three times higher than the general female population. It is usually managed with conservative measures, but sometimes more aggressive treatments like surgery may be required. Due to the limited bibliography currently available, new cases and their management should be recorded in order to assess outcomes. CASE REPORT: A 37-week-old pregnant woman went to the Emergency Department with an epistaxis that did not stop despite the use of conservative techniques. As a result of progressive anemization a sphenopalatine artery ligation was required to stop the bleeding. A cesarean section was performed for premature rupture of membranes and the impossibility of Valsalva maneuver. A male infant was born with APGAR test results of 9-10-10. During follow up the patient presented changes in the anatomy of her paranasal sinuses caused by the sphenopalatine artery ligation and is being followed up by Ear-Nose-Throat specialist. CONCLUSION: Epistaxis during pregnancy rarely leads to maternal and/or fetal involvement; it is therefore essential to know all treatments available as well to record new cases and their management to increase knowledge about this uncommon but severe pathology.

Effectiveness of ring pessaries versus vaginal hysterectomy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the ring pessary compared with surgery as a primary treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in non-hysterectomized, postmenopausal women. Our starting hypothesis was that the pessary is as effective as and less risky than surgery. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational study, which recruited 171 women with symptomatic advanced POP in a tertiary hospital for 30 months. They were treated according their preference with either surgery [77/171 (45.0%)] or vaginal ring pessary without support [94/171 (55.0%)]. The primary outcomes included the discontinuation of pessary use and the incidence of recurrent prolapse throughout the study. Secondary outcomes included complications categorized according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data. The mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables, and continuity correction tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical variables. RESULTS: There was successful use of a pessary in 84.4% (76/90) of cases, and 89.6% (69/77) of patients did not have prolapse recurrence in the surgical group (>POP-Q 2). In the pessary group, the adverse event rate was 31.6%, and all were Clavien-Dindo grade I. Thirty patients [30/77 (39.0%)] had complications in the surgery group: 14.3% were Clavien-Dindo grade I (11/77), 10.4% were grade II (8/77), and 14.3% were grade III (11/77). CONCLUSIONS: The pessary is effective and has mild adverse events in non-hysterectomized, postmenopausal women with advanced POP.

Effectiveness of a continuous-use ring-shaped vaginal pessary without support for advanced pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is considerable variation in the clinical management of pessaries. This study was aimed at exploring the efficacy of the continuous use of ring pessaries without support for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in nonhysterectomized postmenopausal women. METHODS: We conducted this prospective study of fitted pessaries between January 2013 and June 2015 in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Macarena Hospital, Seville University, Spain. A total of 171 nonhysterectomized postmenopausal patients with symptomatic POP (stages III and IV) were counseled for two treatment options: either surgery or vaginal pessary. A total of 94 patients who agreed to use the vaginal ring pessary were included. A successful fitting was defined as the continued use of the device until the end of the study (a median 27-month follow-up). The data were analyzed with continuity correction tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Pessary use was continued by 80.8% of the patients. Most discontinuations (50.0%) occurred within the first week after device insertion. The adverse events rate was 31.6%, and all adverse events were Clavien-Dindo grade I. The complications were extrusion of the pessary (18.4%), bleeding or excoriation (10.5%), and pain or vaginal discharge (2.6%). No major complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The ring pessary without support was successfully fitted in patients with advanced POP, resulting in a high success rate. There were few side effects and complications associated with continuous use of this pessary without periodic removal or replacement.