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...
Saved in:
Published in | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Vol. 231; no. 2; pp. 271.e1 - 271.e10 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Elsevier Inc
01.08.2024
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0002-9378 1097-6868 1097-6868 |
DOI | 10.1016/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 |