Primary treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: pessary use versus prolapse surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to compare the functional outcomes after pessary treatment and after prolapse surgery as primary treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study performed in a Dutch teaching hospital in women with symptomatic POP of stage II or higher requiring treatment. Patients were treated according to their preference with a pessary or prolapse surgery. The primary endpoint was disease-specific quality of life at 12 months follow-up according to the prolapse domain of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and additional interventions. To show a difference of ten points in the primary outcome, we needed to randomize 80 women (power 80%, α 0.05, taking 10% attrition into account).

RESULTS

We included 113 women (74 in the pessary group, 39 in the surgery group). After 12 months, the median prolapse domain score was 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0-33) in the pessary group and 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0-0) in the surgery group (p < 0.01). Differences in other domain scores were not statistically significant. In the pessary group, 28% (21/74) of the women had a surgical intervention versus 3% (1/39) reoperations in the surgery group (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In women with POP of stage II or higher undergoing surgery, prolapse symptoms were less severe than in those who were treated with a pessary, but 72% of women who were treated with a pessary did not opt for surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch trial register NTR2856.