Location and motion of vaginal pessaries in situ in women with successful and unsuccessful pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare the location and motion of pessaries between women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with a successful (fitting) and unsuccessful (non-fitting) pessary treatment on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). METHODS: A cross-sectional exploratory study of 15 women who underwent a mid-sagittal dMRI of the pelvic floor at rest, during contraction and during Valsalva with three different types of pessaries. The coordinates of the pessaries cross section, inferior pubic point (IPP) and sacrococcygeal junction (SCJ) were obtained and the location (position, orientation) and the motion (translation and rotation) were calculated. Differences between the groups and between the pessaries within the groups were compared. RESULTS: Nine women with a fitting pessary and 6 women with a non-fitting pessary were selected. In the non-fitting group, the pessaries were positioned more caudally and rotated more in clockwise direction and descended more, but not significantly, during Valsalva compared with the fitting group. The Falk pessary was positioned more anteriorly in the fitting group and more cranially in the non-fitting group compared with the ring and ring with support pessary. CONCLUSIONS: A non-fitting pessary was positioned more caudally at rest; on Valsalva, it rotated more clockwise and moved more caudally, suggesting that the dynamic characteristics of the pessary might play an important role in its effectiveness. Findings of this study serve as a basis for the development of new pessary designs.

Choice of mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy after OASI: a survey among Dutch gynecologists.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: National and international guidelines do not provide clear recommendations on the mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy after obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI). The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of gynecologists in The Netherlands on this choice and the extent to which this choice is affected by the gynecologist's characteristics. METHODS: Of 973 gynecologists sent a questionnaire seeking their opinion on the mode of delivery in 16 different case descriptions, 234 (24%) responded. Factors influencing the opinion of the respondents on the mode of delivery, the presence of anal symptoms, the degree of OASI and the characteristics of the respondents were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Recommendations on the mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy after OASI showed considerable variation. The recommendations depended on (previous) symptoms and the degree of OASI. For gynecologists who based their recommendations on endoanal ultrasonography outcomes (7-20% depending on the case), the degree of OASI and severity of (previous) symptoms were less important. Gynecologists basing their recommendations on endoanal ultrasonography recommended a primary cesarean section less often. Gynecologist's characteristics (including years of experience, type of hospital and subspecialty) had a small effect on their recommendations on the mode of delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of evidence, recommendations of gynecologists in The Netherlands on the mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy after OASI vary widely and depend on (previous) symptoms and the degree of OASI. Gynecologists who based their recommendations on endoanal ultrasonography outcomes recommended cesarean section less often.