Pessary evaluation for genital prolapse treatment: From acceptance to successful fitting

AbstractAimsTo determine the percentage of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse who opted for pessary and had a successful pessary fitting trial; to identify the most commonly used size of pessary for stage of prolapse; and to identify risk factors associated with unsuccessful fitting.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of women with symptoms of genital prolapse referred to a public hospital tertiary care clinic (2013‐2019). We used ring and ring with support pessaries for fittings. We collected patient demographics, pelvic organ prolapse quantification, size of pessary used and evaluated factors associated with pessary fittings. We defined unsuccessful fit as failure to continue pessary use at 4 weeks post fitting trial. We used Mann‐Whitney and χ2 tests to compare variables between groups of successfully and unsuccessfully fitted. Using logistic regression, we built a prediction model for unsuccessful fit.ResultsAll 170 women with symptomatic prolapse referred to our clinic accepted to undergo a pessary fitting. More than 70% (n = 124/72.9%) were successfully at 4 weeks. We used an average of 1.7 pessaries (range: 1‐6) per patient to identify the best‐fitting pessary and #2, 5, 3, 7, and 4 were the sizes commonly used (78.2%). Women with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR]: 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.98‐11.32; P < .001), total vaginal length <7.5 cm (OR: 3.78; 95% CI, 1.98‐11.32; P < .001), and sexually active women (OR: 2.26; 95% CI, 1.04‐4.91; P = .035) were associated with increased unsuccessful fitting.ConclusionThe vaginal pessary proved to be an excellent choice, with high acceptance and successful fitting rates.