Effectiveness and safety of a novel, collapsible pessary for management of pelvic organ prolapse

Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office tr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology Vol. 231; no. 2; pp. 271.e1 - 271.e10
Main Authors Strohbehn, Kris, Wadensweiler, Paul M., Richter, Holly E., Grimes, Cara L., Rardin, Charles R., Rosenblatt, Peter L., Toglia, Marc R., Siddiqui, Gazala, Hanissian, Paul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.08.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0002-9378
1097-6868
1097-6868
DOI10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009

Cover

Abstract Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months. This was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. A total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects’ baseline scores (mean difference, −3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, −11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, −10.45; 90% confidence interval, −20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject’s own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported. Equivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary. [Display omitted]
AbstractList Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed.BACKGROUNDPessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed.This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months.OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months.This was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons.STUDY DESIGNThis was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons.A total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects' baseline scores (mean difference, -3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, -11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, -10.45; 90% confidence interval, -20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject's own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported.RESULTSA total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects' baseline scores (mean difference, -3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, -11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, -10.45; 90% confidence interval, -20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject's own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported.Equivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary.CONCLUSIONEquivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary.
Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months. This was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. A total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects’ baseline scores (mean difference, −3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, −11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, −10.45; 90% confidence interval, −20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject’s own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported. Equivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary. [Display omitted]
A novel, collapsible investigational pessary is equivalent to ring and Gellhorn pessaries in terms of bother of pelvic floor symptoms (PFDI-20 score) and demonstrated improvement in life impact of symptoms (PFIQ-7 score) and reduction in pain during insertion and removal.
Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early feasibility trial of an investigational, collapsible pessary previously demonstrated mechanical feasibility during a brief 15-minute office trial. Longer-term, patient-centered safety and efficacy data are needed. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of the investigational vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse at 3 months. This was a prospective, 7-center, open-label equivalence study with participants serving as their own controls. Subjects were current users of a Gellhorn or ring pessary with ≥stage 2 prolapse. Subjective and objective data were collected at baseline for 1 month while subjects used their current pessary. Data were then collected throughout a 3-month treatment phase with the study pessary. The primary outcome was change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 score. Secondary outcome measures included objective assessment of prolapse support, changes in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and pain with insertion and removal, measured using a visual analog scale. Data from subjects fitted with the study pessary were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach, and those who dropped out were assigned scores at the upper limit of the predefined equivalence limits. Secondary per protocol analyses included subjects who completed treatment. The study was powered to 80% with a minimal important change equivalence limit of 18.3 points on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scale. Square root transformations were used for nonparametric data, and P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. A total of 78 subjects were enrolled, however, 16 withdrew before study pessary placement. The study pessary was fitted in 62 subjects (50 ring and 12 Gellhorn pessary users), and 48 (62%) completed the 3-month intervention. The change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores at 3 months demonstrated equivalence when compared with the subjects' baseline scores (mean difference, -3.96 [improvement]; 90% confidence interval, -11.99 to 4.08; P=.002). Among those completing study, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores, equivalence was not demonstrated and scores favored the study pessary (mean difference, -10.45; 90% confidence interval, -20.35 to 0.54; P=.095). Secondary outcomes included objective measures of support, which were similar (mean difference: Ba, 0.54 cm; Bp, 0.04 cm, favoring study pessary; improvement in mean Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 scores for those who completed the trial: before, 32.23; after, 16.86; P=.019), and pain with insertion and removal, which was lower with the study pessary than with the subject's own pessary (mean difference visual analog scale score insertion, 9.91 mm; P=.019; removal, 11.23 mm; P=.019). No serious adverse events related to the pessary were reported. Equivalence was demonstrated in the primary outcome of the study pessary when compared with current, noncollapsible pessaries in terms of change in severity and bother of pelvic floor symptoms. Among participants who completed the trial, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 improved with study pessary use and change in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 scores were nonequivalent, favoring the study pessary. Subjects reported significantly lower pain scores with both pessary insertion and removal with the novel collapsible pessary when compared with their standard pessary.
Author Rardin, Charles R.
Strohbehn, Kris
Siddiqui, Gazala
Wadensweiler, Paul M.
Richter, Holly E.
Hanissian, Paul
Toglia, Marc R.
Grimes, Cara L.
Rosenblatt, Peter L.
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Kris
  surname: Strohbehn
  fullname: Strohbehn, Kris
  email: Kris.strohbehn@hitchcock.org
  organization: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Paul M.
  surname: Wadensweiler
  fullname: Wadensweiler, Paul M.
  organization: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Holly E.
  surname: Richter
  fullname: Richter, Holly E.
  organization: The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Cara L.
  surname: Grimes
  fullname: Grimes, Cara L.
  organization: Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Charles R.
  surname: Rardin
  fullname: Rardin, Charles R.
  organization: Women & Infants Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Peter L.
  surname: Rosenblatt
  fullname: Rosenblatt, Peter L.
  organization: Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Marc R.
  surname: Toglia
  fullname: Toglia, Marc R.
  organization: Main Line Health, Jefferson Medical College, Media, PA
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Gazala
  surname: Siddiqui
  fullname: Siddiqui, Gazala
  organization: Texas Medical Center, The University of Texas, Houston, TX
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Paul
  surname: Hanissian
  fullname: Hanissian, Paul
  organization: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38761837$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNqFkU1v1DAQhi1URLeFP8AB-ciBBNtJnBghIVSVFqkSFzgbf4wXL1k72NlI--9xtKUCDnCyLD_PzHjeC3QWYgCEnlNSU0L5612tdnFbM8LamnQ1IeIR2lAi-ooPfDhDG0IIq0TTD-foIufdemWCPUHnzdBzOjT9Bn29dg7M7BcIkDNWweKsHMxHHB1WOMQFxlfYxHFUU_Z6BDwVTqUjdjHhvQpqC3sI84pPMC7e4Ji2KuApxVWBp-ixU2OGZ_fnJfry4frz1W119-nm49X7u8q0tJ0r7TgILnpgphtIZ1kvlGaW9oPtbOcarbWhxBJurO6EZWA1gHa6Jabted82l-jdqe500HuwpsyU1Cin5PdlWhmVl3--BP9NbuMiKWVDIwQrFV7eV0jxxwHyLPc-Gyg_DxAPWTak45y3HeUFffF7s4cuv_ZaAHYCTIo5J3APCCVyDU_u5BqeXMOTpJMlvCK9PUlQ9rR4SDIbD8GA9alkJG30_9bf_KWb0Qdv1Pgdjv-TfwIuPrir
Cites_doi 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000424
10.1007/s00192-022-05415-y
10.1186/s13063-022-06681-3
10.1097/AOG.0000000000003580
10.1097/GME.0000000000002223
10.1007/s00192-016-3228-9
10.1097/SPV.0000000000000313
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02380.x
10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.034
10.1097/AOG.0000000000005121
10.1007/s00192-016-3107-4
10.1016/j.jogc.2018.11.015
10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70203-6
10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025
10.1002/nau.24477
10.1007/s00192-017-3445-x
10.1007/s00192-021-04817-8
10.1007/s00192-019-04200-8
10.1007/s00192-018-3748-6
10.12968/bjon.2019.28.9.S18
10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.012
10.5489/cuaj.2783
10.1007/s00192-012-2020-8
10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.09.003
10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae
10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.010
10.1136/bmjquality.u206180.w2533
10.1097/GME.0000000000000909
10.1001/jama.2022.22385
10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102326
10.1007/s00192-013-2260-2
10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
10.1097/AOG.0000000000001489
10.1097/SPV.0000000000001013
10.1097/GME.0000000000001197
10.1067/mob.2000.107583
10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286
10.1016/j.ajog.2007.02.018
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2024 Elsevier Inc.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright_xml – notice: 2024 Elsevier Inc.
– notice: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
5PM
DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic


MEDLINE

Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1097-6868
EndPage 271.e10
ExternalDocumentID PMC11283992
38761837
10_1016_j_ajog_2024_05_009
S000293782400591X
Genre Multicenter Study
Equivalence Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: National Institute on Aging
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100000049
– fundername: University of Minnesota
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100007249
– fundername: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100000071
– fundername: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006093
– fundername: Brown University
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100006418
– fundername: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100008325
– fundername: UT Southwestern
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100007914
– fundername: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100000062
– fundername: NICHD NIH HHS
  grantid: R44 HD097809
GroupedDBID ---
--K
--M
-ET
.1-
.55
.FO
.GJ
.XZ
.~1
0R~
1B1
1CY
1P~
1~.
1~5
23M
2KS
354
3O-
4.4
457
4CK
4G.
53G
5GY
5RE
5VS
6J9
7-5
85S
8F7
8P~
AAEDT
AAEDW
AAIKC
AAIKJ
AAKOC
AALRI
AAMNW
AAOAW
AAQFI
AAQQT
AAQXK
AATTM
AAWTL
AAXKI
AAXUO
AAYJJ
AAYWO
ABBQC
ABCQX
ABDPE
ABFNM
ABFRF
ABJNI
ABMAC
ABMZM
ABOCM
ABPMR
ABWVN
ABXDB
ACDAQ
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACIEU
ACRLP
ACRPL
ACVFH
ADBBV
ADCNI
ADEZE
ADMUD
ADNMO
ADVLN
AEBSH
AEFWE
AEIPS
AEKER
AENEX
AEUPX
AEVXI
AFCHL
AFFNX
AFJKZ
AFPUW
AFRHN
AFTJW
AFXIZ
AGCQF
AGHFR
AGNAY
AGQPQ
AGUBO
AGYEJ
AHDLI
AI.
AIEXJ
AIGII
AIIUN
AIKHN
AITUG
AJRQY
AJUYK
AKBMS
AKRWK
AKYEP
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMRAJ
ANKPU
ANZVX
APXCP
ASPBG
AVWKF
AXJTR
AZFZN
BKOJK
BLXMC
BNPGV
C45
C5W
CAG
COF
CS3
EBS
EFJIC
EFKBS
EJD
EO8
EX3
F5P
FDB
FEDTE
FGOYB
FIRID
FNPLU
FYGXN
G-Q
GBLVA
HVGLF
HZ~
IH2
IHE
J1W
K-O
KOM
LPU
M41
MO0
N4W
N9A
NEJ
NQ-
O-L
O9-
OAUVE
OBH
OCB
OGEVE
OHH
OHT
OMK
OQ.
OVD
P-8
P-9
P2P
PC.
PH~
Q38
R2-
ROL
RPZ
RXW
SDF
SEL
SES
SEW
SJN
SPCBC
SSH
SSZ
T5K
TAE
TEORI
TWZ
UDS
UGJ
UHB
UHS
UHU
UKR
UNMZH
UV1
VH1
VVN
WH7
WOQ
WOW
X6Y
X7M
XFW
YFH
YOC
YYQ
YZZ
Z5R
ZGI
ZXP
ZY1
~G-
~H1
0SF
AACTN
ADOJD
AFCTW
AFKWA
AJOXV
AMFUW
G8K
NCXOZ
RIG
AAYXX
ACLOT
CITATION
EFLBG
~HD
AGRNS
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-bf6e9697e2c5805d279ab2d178d5d5f3bbbc10d06cdb59d2edbeebfb40c476743
IEDL.DBID .~1
ISSN 0002-9378
1097-6868
IngestDate Tue Sep 30 17:02:42 EDT 2025
Sun Sep 28 02:13:43 EDT 2025
Sun Aug 03 01:52:43 EDT 2025
Wed Oct 01 03:46:21 EDT 2025
Sat Oct 12 15:52:10 EDT 2024
Tue Aug 26 16:31:34 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 2
Keywords treatment
cystocele
pelvic organ prolapse
pessary
apical support
Language English
License Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c414t-bf6e9697e2c5805d279ab2d178d5d5f3bbbc10d06cdb59d2edbeebfb40c476743
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
Author Roles
Kris Strohbehn: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision Paul Wadensweiler: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Holly Richter: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision Cara Grimes: Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision Charles Rardin: Investigation, Supervision Peter Rosenblatt: Investigation, Supervision Marc Toglia: Investigation, Supervision Gazala Siddiqui: Investigation, Supervision Paul Hanissian: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding acquisition.
PMID 38761837
PQID 3056664516
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11283992
proquest_miscellaneous_3056664516
pubmed_primary_38761837
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajog_2024_05_009
elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_ajog_2024_05_009
elsevier_clinicalkey_doi_10_1016_j_ajog_2024_05_009
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2024-08-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2024-08-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 08
  year: 2024
  text: 2024-08-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
PublicationTitleAlternate Am J Obstet Gynecol
PublicationYear 2024
Publisher Elsevier Inc
Publisher_xml – name: Elsevier Inc
References Panman, Wiegersma, Kollen, Burger, Berger, Dekker (bib29) 2017; 28
Dwyer, Dowding, Kearney (bib41) 2022; 12
Samuelsson, Victor, Tibblin, Svärdsudd (bib1) 1999; 180
Carberry, Tulikagas, Ridgeway, Collins, Adam (bib9) 2017; 23
Pott-Grinstein, Newcomer (bib11) 2001; 46
Ghanbari, Ghaemi, Shafiee (bib7) 2022; 11
Wu, Matthews, Conover, Pate, Jonsson Funk (bib43) 2014; 123
Clemons, Aguilar, Tillinghast, Jackson, Myers (bib28) 2004; 190
Shayo, Masenga, Rasch (bib40) 2019; 30
van der Vaart, Vollebregt, Milani (bib38) 2022; 328
Cundiff, Weidner, Visco, Bump, Addison (bib6) 2000; 95
Wiegersma, Panman, Berger, De Vet, Kollen, Dekker (bib22) 2017; 216
Sansone, Sze, Eidelberg (bib26) 2022; 140
Harvey, Lemieux, Robert, Schulz (bib8) 2021; 43
Thys, Hakvoort, Asseler, Milani, Vollebregt, Roovers (bib35) 2020; 31
Kearney, Brown (bib45) 2014; 3
Yimphong, Temtanakitpaisan, Buppasiri, Chongsomchai, Kanchaiyaphum (bib34) 2018; 29
Strohbehn, Wadensweiler, Hanissian (bib17) 2023; 34
Cundiff, Amundsen, Bent (bib12) 2007; 196
(bib20) 2017
Toozs-Hobson, Swift (bib5) 2014; 25
Mao, Ai, Kang (bib24) 2019; 26
Dwyer, Kearney, Lavender (bib47) 2019; 28
Ma, Xu, Kang (bib31) 2020; 39
Cheung, Lee, Lee, Chung, Chan (bib23) 2016; 128
Hagen, Kearney, Goodman (bib39) 2023; 66
Barber, Brubaker, Nygaard (bib4) 2009; 114
Rogers, Rockwood, Constantine (bib19) 2013; 24
Propst, Mellen, O’Sullivan, Tulikangas (bib14) 2020; 135
Unger, Barber, Walters, Paraiso, Ridgeway, Jelovsek (bib44) 2017; 23
Bugge, Adams, Gopinath, Reid (bib16) 2013; 2013
Jaeschke, Singer, Guyatt (bib21) 1989; 10
Mao, Ai, Zhang (bib25) 2018; 117
Wolff, Williams, Winkler, Lind, Shalom (bib13) 2017; 28
Abdulaziz, Stothers, Lazare, Macnab (bib37) 2015; 9
Dwyer, Bugge, Hagen (bib46) 2022; 23
Sung, Jeppson, Madsen (bib2) 2023; 141
Mutone, Terry, Hale, Benson (bib27) 2005; 193
Chan, Hyakutake, Yaskina, Schulz (bib32) 2019; 41
Holubyeva, Rimpel, Blakey-Cheung, Finamore, O’Shaughnessy (bib42) 2021; 27
Deng, Ding, Ai, Zhu (bib30) 2017; 24
Swift (bib3) 2000; 183
Clemons (bib10) 2024
Ziv, Erlich (bib36) 2023; 10
Barber, Walters, Bump (bib18) 2005; 193
Thys, Hakvoort, Milani, Roovers, Vollebregt (bib33) 2021; 32
Sarma, Ying, Moore (bib15) 2009; 116
Lin, Lim, Chang, Chiang, Huang, Tseng (bib48) 2023; 30
Sansone (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib26) 2022; 140
Wiegersma (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib22) 2017; 216
Pott-Grinstein (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib11) 2001; 46
Swift (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib3) 2000; 183
Carberry (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib9) 2017; 23
Holubyeva (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib42) 2021; 27
Abdulaziz (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib37) 2015; 9
Dwyer (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib47) 2019; 28
Ghanbari (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib7) 2022; 11
Barber (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib18) 2005; 193
(10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib20) 2017
Thys (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib35) 2020; 31
Deng (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib30) 2017; 24
Thys (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib33) 2021; 32
Unger (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib44) 2017; 23
Harvey (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib8) 2021; 43
Propst (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib14) 2020; 135
Kearney (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib45) 2014; 3
Dwyer (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib41) 2022; 12
Cundiff (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib12) 2007; 196
Cundiff (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib6) 2000; 95
Wu (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib43) 2014; 123
Samuelsson (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib1) 1999; 180
Clemons (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib28) 2004; 190
Barber (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib4) 2009; 114
Clemons (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib10) 2024
Jaeschke (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib21) 1989; 10
Wolff (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib13) 2017; 28
Ma (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib31) 2020; 39
Yimphong (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib34) 2018; 29
Strohbehn (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib17) 2023; 34
Ziv (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib36) 2023; 10
van der Vaart (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib38) 2022; 328
Lin (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib48) 2023; 30
Toozs-Hobson (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib5) 2014; 25
Dwyer (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib46) 2022; 23
Cheung (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib23) 2016; 128
Mao (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib24) 2019; 26
Mao (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib25) 2018; 117
Mutone (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib27) 2005; 193
Rogers (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib19) 2013; 24
Panman (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib29) 2017; 28
Chan (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib32) 2019; 41
Hagen (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib39) 2023; 66
Sarma (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib15) 2009; 116
Sung (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib2) 2023; 141
Bugge (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib16) 2013; 2013
Shayo (10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib40) 2019; 30
References_xml – volume: 23
  start-page: 281
  year: 2017
  end-page: 287
  ident: bib9
  article-title: American Urogynecologic Society best practice statement: evaluation and counseling of patients with pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
– volume: 140
  start-page: 613
  year: 2022
  end-page: 622
  ident: bib26
  article-title: Role of pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 23
  start-page: 188
  year: 2017
  end-page: 194
  ident: bib44
  article-title: Long-term effectiveness of uterosacral colpopexy and minimally invasive sacral colpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
– volume: 28
  start-page: 307
  year: 2017
  end-page: 313
  ident: bib29
  article-title: Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 183
  start-page: 277
  year: 2000
  end-page: 285
  ident: bib3
  article-title: The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 41
  start-page: 1276
  year: 2019
  end-page: 1281
  ident: bib32
  article-title: What are the clinical factors that are predictive of persistent pessary use at 12 months?
  publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can
– volume: 10
  year: 2023
  ident: bib36
  article-title: A randomized controlled study comparing the objective efficacy and safety of a novel self-inserted disposable vaginal prolapse device and existing ring pessaries
  publication-title: Front Med (Lausanne)
– volume: 46
  start-page: 205
  year: 2001
  end-page: 208
  ident: bib11
  article-title: Gynecologists’ patterns of prescribing pessaries
  publication-title: J Reprod Med
– volume: 39
  start-page: 2238
  year: 2020
  end-page: 2245
  ident: bib31
  article-title: Factors associated with pessary fitting in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a large prospective cohort study
  publication-title: Neurourol Urodyn
– year: 2017
  ident: bib20
  publication-title: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)
– volume: 141
  start-page: 724
  year: 2023
  end-page: 736
  ident: bib2
  article-title: Nonoperative management of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– year: 2024
  ident: bib10
  article-title: Vaginal pessaries: indications, devices, and approach to selection
– volume: 116
  start-page: 1715
  year: 2009
  end-page: 1721
  ident: bib15
  article-title: Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events
  publication-title: BJOG
– volume: 180
  start-page: 299
  year: 1999
  end-page: 305
  ident: bib1
  article-title: Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 190
  start-page: 345
  year: 2004
  end-page: 350
  ident: bib28
  article-title: Risk factors associated with an unsuccessful pessary fitting trial in women with pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 32
  start-page: 2159
  year: 2021
  end-page: 2167
  ident: bib33
  article-title: Can we predict continued pessary use as primary treatment in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP)? A prospective cohort study
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 135
  start-page: 100
  year: 2020
  end-page: 105
  ident: bib14
  article-title: Timing of office-based pessary care: a randomized controlled trial
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 31
  start-page: 1567
  year: 2020
  end-page: 1574
  ident: bib35
  article-title: Effect of pessary cleaning and optimal time interval for follow-up: a prospective cohort study
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 117
  start-page: 51
  year: 2018
  end-page: 56
  ident: bib25
  article-title: Changes in the symptoms and quality of life of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse fitted with a ring with support pessary
  publication-title: Maturitas
– volume: 66
  year: 2023
  ident: bib39
  article-title: Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial
  publication-title: EClinicalmedicine
– volume: 30
  start-page: 1313
  year: 2019
  end-page: 1321
  ident: bib40
  article-title: Vaginal pessaries in the management of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in rural Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: a pre-post interventional study
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 34
  start-page: 317
  year: 2023
  end-page: 319
  ident: bib17
  article-title: A novel, collapsible, space-occupying pessary for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 24
  start-page: 1277
  year: 2017
  end-page: 1281
  ident: bib30
  article-title: Successful use of the Gellhorn pessary as a second-line pessary in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Menopause
– volume: 114
  start-page: 600
  year: 2009
  end-page: 609
  ident: bib4
  article-title: Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 193
  start-page: 103
  year: 2005
  end-page: 113
  ident: bib18
  article-title: Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7)
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 10
  start-page: 407
  year: 1989
  end-page: 415
  ident: bib21
  article-title: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference
  publication-title: Control Clin Trials
– volume: 27
  start-page: 214
  year: 2021
  end-page: 216
  ident: bib42
  article-title: Rates of pessary self-care and the characteristics of patients who perform it
  publication-title: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
– volume: 28
  start-page: 993
  year: 2017
  end-page: 997
  ident: bib13
  article-title: Pessary types and discontinuation rates in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 24
  start-page: 1091
  year: 2013
  end-page: 1103
  ident: bib19
  article-title: A new measure of sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFD): the Pelvic Organ prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR)
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 29
  start-page: 1123
  year: 2018
  end-page: 1128
  ident: bib34
  article-title: Discontinuation rate and adverse events after 1 year of vaginal pessary use in women with pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 12
  year: 2022
  ident: bib41
  article-title: What is known from the existing literature about self-management of pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse? A scoping review
  publication-title: BMJ Open
– volume: 43
  start-page: 225
  year: 2021
  end-page: 266.e1
  ident: bib8
  article-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can
  publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can
– volume: 128
  start-page: 73
  year: 2016
  end-page: 80
  ident: bib23
  article-title: Vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 2013
  year: 2013
  ident: bib16
  article-title: Pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse in women
  publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
– volume: 196
  start-page: 405.e1
  year: 2007
  end-page: 405.e8
  ident: bib12
  article-title: The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 26
  start-page: 145
  year: 2019
  end-page: 151
  ident: bib24
  article-title: Successful long-term use of Gellhorn pessary and the effect on symptoms and quality of life in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Menopause
– volume: 9
  start-page: E400
  year: 2015
  end-page: E406
  ident: bib37
  article-title: An integrative review and severity classification of complications related to pessary use in the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Can Urol Assoc J
– volume: 328
  start-page: 2312
  year: 2022
  end-page: 2323
  ident: bib38
  article-title: Effect of pessary vs surgery on patient-reported improvement in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized clinical trial
  publication-title: JAMA
– volume: 30
  start-page: 947
  year: 2023
  end-page: 953
  ident: bib48
  article-title: Tailor-made three-dimensional printing vaginal pessary to treat pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study
  publication-title: Menopause
– volume: 11
  start-page: 7166
  year: 2022
  ident: bib7
  article-title: Quality of life following pelvic organ prolapse treatments in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  publication-title: J Clin Med
– volume: 23
  start-page: 742
  year: 2022
  ident: bib46
  article-title: Theoretical and practical development of the TOPSY self-management intervention for women who use a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Trials
– volume: 95
  start-page: 931
  year: 2000
  end-page: 935
  ident: bib6
  article-title: A survey of pessary use by members of the American Urogynecologic Society
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 216
  start-page: 397.e1
  year: 2017
  end-page: 397.e7
  ident: bib22
  article-title: Minimal important change in the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 among women opting for conservative prolapse treatment
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 25
  start-page: 445
  year: 2014
  end-page: 446
  ident: bib5
  article-title: POP-Q stage I prolapse: is it time to alter our terminology?
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
– volume: 193
  start-page: 89
  year: 2005
  end-page: 94
  ident: bib27
  article-title: Factors which influence the short-term success of pessary management of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 3
  year: 2014
  ident: bib45
  article-title: Self-management of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: BMJ Qual Improv Rep
– volume: 123
  start-page: 1201
  year: 2014
  end-page: 1206
  ident: bib43
  article-title: Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 28
  start-page: S18
  year: 2019
  end-page: S24
  ident: bib47
  article-title: A review of pessary for prolapse practitioner training
  publication-title: Br J Nurs
– year: 2024
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib10
– volume: 23
  start-page: 281
  year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib9
  article-title: American Urogynecologic Society best practice statement: evaluation and counseling of patients with pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
  doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000424
– volume: 34
  start-page: 317
  year: 2023
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib17
  article-title: A novel, collapsible, space-occupying pessary for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05415-y
– volume: 23
  start-page: 742
  year: 2022
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib46
  article-title: Theoretical and practical development of the TOPSY self-management intervention for women who use a vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Trials
  doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06681-3
– volume: 135
  start-page: 100
  year: 2020
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib14
  article-title: Timing of office-based pessary care: a randomized controlled trial
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003580
– volume: 30
  start-page: 947
  year: 2023
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib48
  article-title: Tailor-made three-dimensional printing vaginal pessary to treat pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study
  publication-title: Menopause
  doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000002223
– volume: 28
  start-page: 993
  year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib13
  article-title: Pessary types and discontinuation rates in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3228-9
– volume: 23
  start-page: 188
  year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib44
  article-title: Long-term effectiveness of uterosacral colpopexy and minimally invasive sacral colpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
  doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000313
– volume: 116
  start-page: 1715
  year: 2009
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib15
  article-title: Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events
  publication-title: BJOG
  doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02380.x
– volume: 190
  start-page: 345
  year: 2004
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib28
  article-title: Risk factors associated with an unsuccessful pessary fitting trial in women with pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.034
– volume: 141
  start-page: 724
  year: 2023
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib2
  article-title: Nonoperative management of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005121
– volume: 28
  start-page: 307
  year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib29
  article-title: Predictors of unsuccessful pessary fitting in women with prolapse: a cross-sectional study in general practice
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3107-4
– volume: 41
  start-page: 1276
  year: 2019
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib32
  article-title: What are the clinical factors that are predictive of persistent pessary use at 12 months?
  publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can
  doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.11.015
– volume: 180
  start-page: 299
  year: 1999
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib1
  article-title: Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70203-6
– volume: 193
  start-page: 103
  year: 2005
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib18
  article-title: Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7)
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025
– volume: 95
  start-page: 931
  year: 2000
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib6
  article-title: A survey of pessary use by members of the American Urogynecologic Society
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
– volume: 39
  start-page: 2238
  year: 2020
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib31
  article-title: Factors associated with pessary fitting in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a large prospective cohort study
  publication-title: Neurourol Urodyn
  doi: 10.1002/nau.24477
– volume: 29
  start-page: 1123
  year: 2018
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib34
  article-title: Discontinuation rate and adverse events after 1 year of vaginal pessary use in women with pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3445-x
– volume: 32
  start-page: 2159
  year: 2021
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib33
  article-title: Can we predict continued pessary use as primary treatment in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP)? A prospective cohort study
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04817-8
– volume: 46
  start-page: 205
  year: 2001
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib11
  article-title: Gynecologists’ patterns of prescribing pessaries
  publication-title: J Reprod Med
– volume: 31
  start-page: 1567
  year: 2020
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib35
  article-title: Effect of pessary cleaning and optimal time interval for follow-up: a prospective cohort study
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04200-8
– volume: 30
  start-page: 1313
  year: 2019
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib40
  article-title: Vaginal pessaries in the management of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in rural Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: a pre-post interventional study
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3748-6
– volume: 28
  start-page: S18
  year: 2019
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib47
  article-title: A review of pessary for prolapse practitioner training
  publication-title: Br J Nurs
  doi: 10.12968/bjon.2019.28.9.S18
– volume: 193
  start-page: 89
  year: 2005
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib27
  article-title: Factors which influence the short-term success of pessary management of pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.012
– volume: 9
  start-page: E400
  year: 2015
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib37
  article-title: An integrative review and severity classification of complications related to pessary use in the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Can Urol Assoc J
  doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2783
– volume: 24
  start-page: 1091
  year: 2013
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib19
  article-title: A new measure of sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFD): the Pelvic Organ prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR)
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-2020-8
– volume: 12
  year: 2022
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib41
  article-title: What is known from the existing literature about self-management of pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse? A scoping review
  publication-title: BMJ Open
– volume: 117
  start-page: 51
  year: 2018
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib25
  article-title: Changes in the symptoms and quality of life of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse fitted with a ring with support pessary
  publication-title: Maturitas
  doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.09.003
– volume: 10
  year: 2023
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib36
  article-title: A randomized controlled study comparing the objective efficacy and safety of a novel self-inserted disposable vaginal prolapse device and existing ring pessaries
  publication-title: Front Med (Lausanne)
– volume: 114
  start-page: 600
  year: 2009
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib4
  article-title: Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae
– volume: 216
  start-page: 397.e1
  year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib22
  article-title: Minimal important change in the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 among women opting for conservative prolapse treatment
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.010
– volume: 3
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib45
  article-title: Self-management of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: BMJ Qual Improv Rep
  doi: 10.1136/bmjquality.u206180.w2533
– volume: 11
  start-page: 7166
  year: 2022
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib7
  article-title: Quality of life following pelvic organ prolapse treatments in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  publication-title: J Clin Med
– volume: 24
  start-page: 1277
  year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib30
  article-title: Successful use of the Gellhorn pessary as a second-line pessary in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Menopause
  doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000909
– volume: 328
  start-page: 2312
  year: 2022
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib38
  article-title: Effect of pessary vs surgery on patient-reported improvement in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized clinical trial
  publication-title: JAMA
  doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.22385
– volume: 66
  year: 2023
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib39
  article-title: Clinical effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management vs clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse (TOPSY): a randomised controlled superiority trial
  publication-title: EClinicalmedicine
  doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102326
– year: 2017
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib20
– volume: 25
  start-page: 445
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib5
  article-title: POP-Q stage I prolapse: is it time to alter our terminology?
  publication-title: Int Urogynecol J
  doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2260-2
– volume: 10
  start-page: 407
  year: 1989
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib21
  article-title: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference
  publication-title: Control Clin Trials
  doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
– volume: 128
  start-page: 73
  year: 2016
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib23
  article-title: Vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001489
– volume: 43
  start-page: 225
  issue: 2
  year: 2021
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib8
  article-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can
  publication-title: J Obstet Gynaecol Can
– volume: 27
  start-page: 214
  year: 2021
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib42
  article-title: Rates of pessary self-care and the characteristics of patients who perform it
  publication-title: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
  doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001013
– volume: 26
  start-page: 145
  year: 2019
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib24
  article-title: Successful long-term use of Gellhorn pessary and the effect on symptoms and quality of life in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse
  publication-title: Menopause
  doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001197
– volume: 183
  start-page: 277
  year: 2000
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib3
  article-title: The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1067/mob.2000.107583
– volume: 123
  start-page: 1201
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib43
  article-title: Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286
– volume: 196
  start-page: 405.e1
  year: 2007
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib12
  article-title: The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries
  publication-title: Am J Obstet Gynecol
  doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.02.018
– volume: 2013
  year: 2013
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib16
  article-title: Pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse in women
  publication-title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
– volume: 140
  start-page: 613
  year: 2022
  ident: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009_bib26
  article-title: Role of pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  publication-title: Obstet Gynecol
SSID ssj0002292
Score 2.460974
Snippet Pessaries are an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse, yet currently available pessaries can cause discomfort during removal and insertion. An early...
A novel, collapsible investigational pessary is equivalent to ring and Gellhorn pessaries in terms of bother of pelvic floor symptoms (PFDI-20 score) and...
SourceID pubmedcentral
proquest
pubmed
crossref
elsevier
SourceType Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Publisher
StartPage 271.e1
SubjectTerms Aged
apical support
cystocele
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
pelvic organ prolapse
Pelvic Organ Prolapse - therapy
Pessaries
pessary
Prospective Studies
treatment
Treatment Outcome
Title Effectiveness and safety of a novel, collapsible pessary for management of pelvic organ prolapse
URI https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S000293782400591X
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.009
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38761837
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3056664516
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC11283992
Volume 231
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
journalDatabaseRights – providerCode: PRVESC
  databaseName: Baden-Württemberg Complete Freedom Collection (Elsevier)
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1097-6868
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: true
  ssIdentifier: ssj0002292
  issn: 0002-9378
  databaseCode: GBLVA
  dateStart: 20110101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com
  providerName: Elsevier
– providerCode: PRVESC
  databaseName: Elsevier ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1097-6868
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: true
  ssIdentifier: ssj0002292
  issn: 0002-9378
  databaseCode: AIKHN
  dateStart: 20170101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com
  providerName: Elsevier
– providerCode: PRVESC
  databaseName: Elsevier SD Complete Freedom Collection [SCCMFC]
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1097-6868
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: true
  ssIdentifier: ssj0002292
  issn: 0002-9378
  databaseCode: ACRLP
  dateStart: 20170101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com
  providerName: Elsevier
– providerCode: PRVESC
  databaseName: Elsevier SD Freedom Collection
  customDbUrl:
  eissn: 1097-6868
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: true
  ssIdentifier: ssj0002292
  issn: 0002-9378
  databaseCode: .~1
  dateStart: 19950101
  isFulltext: true
  titleUrlDefault: https://www.sciencedirect.com
  providerName: Elsevier
– providerCode: PRVLSH
  databaseName: Elsevier Journals
  customDbUrl:
  mediaType: online
  eissn: 1097-6868
  dateEnd: 99991231
  omitProxy: true
  ssIdentifier: ssj0002292
  issn: 0002-9378
  databaseCode: AKRWK
  dateStart: 19930101
  isFulltext: true
  providerName: Library Specific Holdings
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3dS9xAEB9EofRFbKvt2Spb6JtNzcfuJnkUUa4t-lTh3ra72YmenEnQs-CLf7sz-bh6trQg5CXJDgwzu7-ZZX8zC_CJT3YcraRAqzIJJKFBkGGEQVL4MkJFT86Fwienenwmv03UZAUOh1oYplX22N9heovW_Zf93pr7zXTKNb4hxSqKcJIrKKMJV7BLzbS-L_e_aR5xnMdDCsyj-8KZjuNlL-tz2iPGsu3eyaTEvwenP5PPpxzKR0HpeAPW-2xSHHQKv4IVrF7Di5P-vPwN_OyaE_eIJmzlxY0tcX4n6lJYUdW_cPZZtHOhobUxQ9HwlSjXd4JyWXG1oMbw8AZnhCqivQZKkKYsgptwdnz043Ac9HcqBIWM5DxwpcZc5ynGhcpC5eM0ty72UZp55cldzrkiCn2oC-9U7mP0DtGVToaF5L4_yRasVnWF70BYiv55pjT5l5IY6TOrEutsmuTOhiijEewNxjRN1zrDDJyyS8OmN2x6EypDph9BMtjbDEWhBGOGkP2fUmohtTRt_iv3cXCpofXEhyS2wvr2xvCWSmu-vngEbzsXL7RPKHQQBKYjyJacvxjAvbqX_1TTi7ZnN6W1GfcA3n6mwu_hJb911MMPsDq_vsUdSofmbred77uwdvD1-_j0AcdjDBg
linkProvider Elsevier
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1La9wwEB7SDbS9lL67farQW2vih-THMYSGTZPdUwJ7UyVr3G7Y2ibZBPLvM2PLptuWFgo-WRoQM9I3n9A8AD7wy46lkxSkqkoCSWgQ5BhhkJSuilDRV3Ci8HyRzs7kl6Va7sDBkAvDYZUe-3tM79Da_9nz2txrVyvO8Q3JV5GHk5xBGS3vwK5UhMkT2N0_Op4tRkCO4yIeWDAL-NyZPszLnDff6JoYy66AJ8cl_tk__c4_fw2j_MkvHT6EB55Qiv1-zY9gB-vHcHfun8yfwNe-PrEHNWFqJy5NhZsb0VTCiLq5xvUn0W2Hlo7HGkXLXVEubgTRWfFjjI7h6S2uCVhE1wlK0EpZBJ_C2eHn04NZ4NsqBKWM5CawVYpFWmQYlyoPlYuzwtjYRVnulCOLWWvLKHRhWjqrChejs4i2sjIsJZf-SZ7BpG5qfAHCEAEocpWSiYnHSJcblRhrsqSwJkQZTeHjoEzd9tUz9BBWdq5Z9ZpVr0OlSfVTSAZ96yEvlJBME7j_VUqNUls7559y7weTajpS_E5iamyuLjXfqtKUOxhP4Xlv4nH1CXkPQsFsCvmW8ccJXK57e6Refe_KdhOzzbkM8Mv_XPA7uDc7nZ_ok6PF8Su4zyN9JOJrmGwurvANsaONfet3_y3VAQ7D
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness+and+safety+of+a+novel%2C+collapsible+pessary+for+management+of+pelvic+organ+prolapse&rft.jtitle=American+journal+of+obstetrics+and+gynecology&rft.au=Strohbehn%2C+Kris&rft.au=Wadensweiler%2C+Paul+M&rft.au=Richter%2C+Holly+E&rft.au=Grimes%2C+Cara+L&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.issn=1097-6868&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft.volume=231&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=271.e1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ajog.2024.05.009&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0002-9378&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0002-9378&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0002-9378&client=summon