A survey of pessary use by members of the American urogynecologic society.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

An anonymous survey administered to the membership of the American Urogynecologic Society covered indications, management, and choice of pessary for specific support defects.

RESULTS

The response rate was 48% (359 of 748). Two hundred fifty surveys were received at the scientific meeting and 109 were returned by mail. Seventy-seven percent used pessaries as first-line therapy for prolapse, while 12% reserved pessaries for women who were not surgical candidates. With respect to specific support defects, 89% used a pessary for anterior defects, 60% for posterior defects, 74% for apical defects, and 76% for complete procidentia. Twenty-two percent used the same pessary, usually a ring pessary, for all support defects. In the 78% who tailored the pessary to the defect, support pessaries were more common for anterior (ring) and apical defects (ring), while space-filling pessaries were more common for posterior defects (donut) and complete procidentia (Gellhorn). Less than half considered a prior hysterectomy or sexual activity contraindications for a pessary, while 64% considered hypoestrogenism a contraindication. Forty-four percent used a different pessary for women with a prior hysterectomy and 59% for women with a weak pelvic diaphragm. Ninety-two percent of physicians believed that pessaries relieve symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse, while 48% felt that pessaries also had therapeutic benefit in addition to relieving symptoms.

CONCLUSION

While there are identifiable trends in pessary use, there is no clear consensus regarding the indications for support pessaries compared with space-filling pessaries, or the use of a single pessary for all support defects compared with tailoring the pessary to the specific defect. Randomized clinical trials are needed to define optimal pessary use.