Position and orientation of vaginal pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that there are differences in the position and orientation of ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing MRI findings in 25 women with pessaries in situ at the time of imaging. Scanner coordinates for anatomic and pessary landmarks were obtained and transformed to 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System coordinates using MATLAB software. The normal vector to the pessary disc was computed and compared to the positive y-axis in the sagittal and coronal planes to determine XY and YZ disc angles, respectively. Comparisons between groups were made using Wilcoxon rank, Fisher's exact, and Brown-Forsythe tests. RESULTS: Twenty-one women with ring pessaries and four women with Gellhorn pessaries met inclusion criteria for the study. Women with ring pessaries were younger (68.4 vs. 80.7 years, p = 0.003) but had similar BMI, vaginal parity, history of hysterectomy, and anatomic characteristics. Ring pessaries had a smaller diameter (59.5 vs. 79.3 mm, p = 0.004) and were positioned further posterior with respect to the inferior pubic point (midpoint X position 42.6 vs. 29.5 mm, p = 0.004). There were significant differences in the magnitude and variance of the XY disc angle (57.0 ± 14.0 vs. -1.2 ± 2.8 degrees, p = 0.002 for magnitude, p = 0.012 for variance) but not the YZ disc angle (3.3 ± 30.6 vs. 1.5 ± 7.7 degrees, p > 0.05 for both) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found differences in the position and orientation between ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ using an anatomic 3D reference system. These findings provide insight into the mechanism of action of vaginal pessaries.

Survey of pelvic reconstructive surgeons on performance of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) at the time of benign hysterectomy has recently emerged as a potential primary preventive modality for ovarian cancer. Our objective was to determine whether the reported rate of OS at the time of prolapse surgery is similar to the rate of OS at the time of gynecologic surgery for non-prolapse indications. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was sent to the Society of Gynecologic Surgery members. Responses were divided into surgeons who did and did not perform OS at the time of prolapse repair. Differences between surgeons who did and did not perform OS were evaluated using the chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify which responses related to increased odds of performing OS. RESULTS: There were 117 (33.1%) completed responses; of these, 98 (83.8%) reported performing OS at the time of prolapse repair, which was similar to the reported rate of OS at the time of hysterectomy for non-prolapse indications, 82.1%. After multivariable logistic regression, performance of salpingectomy at the time of hysterectomy for a non-prolapse indication (aOR: 17.9, 95% CI: 3.11-42.01), use of a laparoscopic or robotic surgical approach (aOR 14.1, 95% CI: 1.81-32.21) and completion of an FPMRS fellowship (aOR: 3.47, 95% CI: 1.20-10.02) were associated with a higher likelihood of performing OS at the time of prolapse repair. CONCLUSIONS: OS at the time prolapse repair is performed more frequently with concomitant hysterectomy compared with OS at the time of post-hysterectomy prolapse repair and is similar to rates of OS performed at the time of hysterectomy for non-prolapse indications.