Outcomes of Pessary Use at 1 Year in Women Treated for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in a Large Multicenter Registry: Developed by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry.

IMPORTANCE: There is a lack of high-quality long-term follow-up regarding pessary treatment. Most studies are case series or retrospective with a small sample size and short-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate differences in women who continue versus discontinue pessary use and the effectiveness, quality of life, and safety associated with pessary management at 1 year. STUDY DESIGN: This study analyzed a multicenter national registry following women for 3 years with vaginal prolapse treated with a pessary or surgery. The primary outcome of this analysis was to compare the difference in characteristics among those who continue versus discontinue pessary use at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 1,153 participants enrolled, 376 (32.6%) opted for a pessary, and 296 (78.7%) were successfully fitted. Data were available for 240 participants (81%). At 1 year, 62% (n = 148) were still using pessaries, and 38% (n = 92) had stopped with 25% opting for surgery. Most commonly reported de novo adverse effects were urinary leakage (16%), feeling or seeing a bulge (12%), and vaginal discharge (11%). There was no difference in baseline characteristics among women who continued versus discontinued pessary use. At 12 months, subjective symptoms were similar between groups, with similar change in symptoms from baseline on most validated instruments. Those who continued to use a pessary reported worse urinary symptoms due to de novo urinary leakage ( P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, most women successfully fitted with a pessary continued pessary use. Although there was a significant improvement in condition-specific quality of life and low rates of complications, approximately 40% of women discontinued pessary use by 12 months. We were unable to identify any baseline characteristics associated with pessary discontinuation.

Generic Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Seeking Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: Using the American Urogynecologic Society multicenter Pelvic Floor Disorder Registry for Research, we (1) compared generic quality of life (QOL) in women planning pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment (surgery vs pessary), (2) correlated generic and condition-specific QOL scores, and (3) identified associations between generic QOL and other factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis assessed generic physical and mental QOL using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health Scale at baseline. Global Physical and Mental T-scores center on a representative US population sample (mean [SD], 50 [10]; higher scores, better health). Condition-specific QOL was assessed with Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, and POP/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire. Linear regression models identified associations between clinical factors and Global Physical/Mental scores. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-eight women (419 surgery, 149 pessary) were included. Surgery patients were younger, heavier, and more often sexually active (all P's ≤ 0.01). Global Physical scores were lower in the surgery versus pessary group, but not likely clinically meaningful (mean [SD], 48.8 [8.1] vs 50.4 [8.5]; P = 0.035); Global Mental scores were similar (51.4 [8.4] vs 51.9 [9.5], P = 0.56). Global Health scores correlated with Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, and POP/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire scores (all P's < 0.0001). In multivariable models, menopause was associated with better physical QOL, and constipation, coronary artery disease, pelvic pain, and increased body mass index with worse physical QOL. Age was associated with better mental QOL, and constipation, fecal incontinence, pelvic pain, and coronary artery disease with worse mental QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Women choosing POP surgery versus pessary had similar physical and mental generic QOL.