Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb 28;2013(2):CD004010.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub3.

Pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse in women

Carol Bugge  1 , Elisabeth J Adams, Deepa Gopinath, Fiona Reid
Affiliations

Pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse in women

Carol Bugge et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, with some degree of prolapse seen in up to 50% of parous women in a clinic setting, although many are asymptomatic. The use of pessaries (a passive mechanical device designed to support the vagina) to treat prolapse is very common, and up to 77% of clinicians use pessaries for the first line management of prolapse. A number of symptoms may be associated with prolapse and treatments include surgery, pessaries and conservative therapies. A variety of pessaries are described which aim to alleviate the symptoms of prolapse and avert or delay the need for surgery.

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of trials (searched 13 March 2012), which includes searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE and handsearching of conference proceedings, and handsearched the abstracts of two relevant conferences held in 2011. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in one arm of the study.

Data collection and analysis: Abstracts were assessed independently by two authors with arbitration from a third if necessary. Data extraction was completed independently for included studies by two review authors.

Main results: To date there is only one published randomised controlled trial assessing the use of pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors' conclusions: The review authors identified one randomised controlled trial comparing ring and Gellhorn pessaries. The results of the trial showed that both pessaries were effective for the approximately 60% of women who completed the study with no significant differences identified between the two types of pessary. However, methodological flaws were noted in the trial, as elaborated under risk of bias assessment. There is no consensus on the use of different types of device, the indications nor the pattern of replacement and follow-up care. There is an urgent need for randomised studies to address the use of pessaries in comparison with no treatment, surgery and conservative measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known

Figures

1
1
PRISMA study flow diagram (for the current version of the review).
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Cundiff 2007 {published data only}
    1. Cundiff GN, Amundsen CL, Bent AE, Coates KW, Schaffer JI, Strohbehn K, et al. The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007;196(4):405.e1‐8. [SR‐INCONT23081; PUBMED: 17403437] - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Additional references

Barber 2001
    1. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition‐specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;185(6):1388‐95. - PubMed
Basu 2011
    1. Basu M, Wise B, Duckett J. A qualitative study of women’s preferences for treatment of pelvic floor disorders. BJOG 2011;118:338‐44. - PubMed
Bump 1996
    1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, Delancey JOL, Klarskov P, et al. The standardisation of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;175(1):10‐7. - PubMed
Bump 1998
    1. Bump R, Norton P. Epidemiology and natural history of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 1998;25(4):723‐46. - PubMed
Clemons 2 2004
    1. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL. Risk factors associated with an unsuccessful pessary fitting trial in women with pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;190(2):345‐50. - PubMed
Clemons 2004
    1. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL. Patient satisfaction and changes in prolapse and urinary symptoms in women who were fitted successfully with a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;190(4):1025‐9. - PubMed
Clemons 3 2004
    1. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Sokol ER, Jackson ND, Myers DL. Patient characteristics that are associated with continued pessary use versus surgery after 1 year. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191(1):159‐64. - PubMed
Cundiff 2000
    1. Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Bump RC, Addison WA. A survey of pessary use by members of the American Urogynecologic Society. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;95(6):931‐5. - PubMed
Dietz 2008
    1. Dietz HP. The aetiology of prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal 2008;19:1323‐9. - PubMed
Gorti 2009
    1. Gorti M, Hundelist G, Simons A. Evaluation of vaginal pessary management: A UK‐based survey. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;29(2):129‐31. - PubMed
Guyatt 2011a
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):380‐2. - PubMed
Guyatt 2011b
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1311‐6. - PubMed
Guyatt 2013a
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables‐binary outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):158‐72. - PubMed
Guyatt 2013b
    1. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles‐continuous outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):173‐83. - PubMed
Hagen 2009
    1. Hagen S, Glazener C, Sinclair L, Stark D, Bugge C. Psychometric properties of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP‐SS). British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;116(1):25‐31. - PubMed
Hagen 2011b
    1. Hagen S, Stark D. Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003882.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Handa 2002
    1. Handa VL, Jones M. Do pessaries prevent the progression of pelvic organ prolapse?. International Urogynecological Journal 2002;13(6):349‐51. - PubMed
Hanson 2006
    1. Hanson LM, Schultz J, Flood CG, Cooley B, Tam F. Vaginal pessaries in managing women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence:patient characteristics and factors contributing to success. International Urogynecological Journal 2006;17:155‐9. - PubMed
Hay‐Smith 2009
    1. Hay‐Smith J, Berghmans B, Burgio K, Dumoulin C, Hagen S, Moore K, Nygaard I. Adult Conservative Management. Incontinence, Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence. Plymouth, UK: Health Publication Ltd, 2009.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Ismail 2010
    1. Ismail SI, Bain C, Hagen S. Oestrogens for treatment or prevention of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007063.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Kapoor 2009
    1. Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice?. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2009;20(10):1157‐61. - PubMed
Lipp 2011
    1. Lipp A, Shaw C, Glavind K. Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001756.pub5] - DOI - PubMed
Lone 2011
    1. Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Karamalis G. A 5‐year prospective study of vaginal pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2011;114(1):56‐9. - PubMed
Lowder 2011
    1. Lowder JL, Ghetti C, Nikolajski C, Oliphant SS, Zyczynski HM. Body image perceptions in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;204(441):e1‐5. - PubMed
MacLennan 2000
    1. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wilson D. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2000;107(12):1460‐70. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Maher 2010
    1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CMA. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Manchana 2012
    1. Manchana T, Bunyavejchevin S. Impact on quality of life after ring pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. International Urogynecological Journal 2012;23(7):873‐7. - PubMed
Oliver 2011
    1. Oliver R, Thakar R, Sultan AH. The history and usage of the vaginal pessary: a review. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2011;156:125‐30. - PubMed
Poma 2000
    1. Poma PA. Nonsurgical management of genital prolapse. A review and recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2000;45(10):789‐97. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Pott‐Grinstein 2001
    1. Pott‐Grinstein E, Newcomer JR. Gynecologists' patterns of prescribing pessaries. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2001;46(3):205‐8. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Samuelsson 1999
    1. Samuelsson EC, Victor FTA, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;180(2):299‐305. - PubMed
Sloan 2005
    1. Sloan JA. Cella D, Hays RD. Clinical significance of patient‐reported questionnaire data: another step towards consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005;58:1217‐9. - PubMed
Swift 2000
    1. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;183(2):277‐85. - PubMed
Ware 1993
    1. Ware JE. Measuring patients' views: the optimum outcome measure. SF36: a valid, reliable assessment of health from the patient's point of view. British Medical Journal 1993;306(6890):1429‐30. - PMC - PubMed
Zigmond 1983
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1983;67(6):361‐70. - PubMed

Publication types