Long-term Outcomes of Self-Management Gellhorn Pessary for Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg

From the Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan.

Published: November 2020

Objective: The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term survival and to identify adverse events associated with the use of Gellhorn pessaries over a 9-year period.

Methods: This was a retrospective case series study at a tertiary urogynecology unit in Taiwan. Between January 2009 and June 2017, 93 patients who opted for self-management Gellhorn pessaries to treat symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and who were continuously followed-up were enrolled. Long-term use was defined as use for longer than 1 year. Length of use, factors that predicted discontinuation, and adverse events were analyzed and reviewed by chart or telephone inquiry.

Results: The cumulative probabilities of continued pessary use at 1 and 5 years were 62.4% and 47.2%, respectively. Of those who discontinued use, 34 (70.8%) participants discontinued use within 1 year, and the mean duration of use was 13.7 months (range, 0-75 months; median, 5 months). Most of the participants stopped using the pessary because of bothersome adverse events such as pessary expulsion, vaginal pain, de novo urinary incontinence, and erosion/infection.

Conclusions: Self-management Gellhorn pessary was safe and relatively effective and increased patients' autonomy and ability to manage their POP. One third of the patients discontinued use by 1 year, and half of the patients discontinued use at 5 years.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000770DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

self-management gellhorn
12
adverse events
12
gellhorn pessary
8
symptomatic pelvic
8
pelvic organ
8
organ prolapse
8
gellhorn pessaries
8
discontinued year
8
patients discontinued
8
pessary
5

Similar Publications

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.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Prolapse affects 30-40% of women. Those using a pessary for prolapse usually receive care as an outpatient. This trial determined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management (SM) vs clinic-based care (CBC) in relation to condition-specific quality of life (QoL).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: This study aimed to apply three-dimensional (3D) printing technology to treat women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to evaluate efficacy based on the improvement by quality of life (QOL) questionnaires.

Methods: This was a pilot study at a tertiary urogynecology unit in Taiwan. Between January 2021 and June 6, 2021, participants who opted for self-management using Gellhorn pessaries to treat symptomatic POP were enrolled.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

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.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction And Hypothesis: Vaginal pessaries are a low-cost, effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an alternative to surgery. Whilst traditionally pessary management (PM) has been provided by medical professionals, particularly gynaecologists, recent international studies found other professionals, including physiotherapists and nurses, may be involved. It is unknown which health care practitioners (HCPs) provide PM for POP in Australia or the distribution of services.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!