Objective: To describe trends in pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse.
Methods: An anonymous survey administered to the membership of the American
Urogynecologic Society covered indications, management, and choice of pess
ary for specific support defects.
Results: The response rate was 48% (359 of 748). Two hundred fifty surveys
were received at the scientific meeting and 109 were returned by mail. Seve
nty-seven percent used pessaries as first-line therapy for prolapse, while
12% reserved pessaries for women who were not surgical candidates. With res
pect to specific support defects, 89% used a pessary for anterior defects,
60% for posterior defects, 74% for apical defects, and 76% for complete pro
cidentia. Twenty-two percent used the same pessary, usually a ring pessary,
for all support defects. In the 78% who tailored the pessary to the defect
, support pessaries were more common for anterior (ring) and apical defects
(ring), while space-filling pessaries were more common for posterior defec
ts (donut) and complete procidentia (Gellhorn). Less than half considered a
prior hysterectomy or sexual activity contraindications for a pessary, whi
le 64% considered hypoestrogenism a contraindication. Forty-four percent us
ed a different pessary for women with a prior hysterectomy and 59% for wome
n with a weak pelvic diaphragm. Ninety-two percent of physicians believed t
hat pessaries relieve symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse, while
48% felt that pessaries also had therapeutic benefit in addition to reliev
ing symptoms.
Conclusion: While there are identifiable trends in pessary use, there is no
clear consensus regarding the indications for support pessaries compared w
ith space-filling pessaries, or the use of a single pessary for all support
defects compared with tailoring the pessary to the specific defect. Random
ized clinical trials are needed to define optimal pessary use. (Obstet Gyne
col 2000;95:931-5. (C) 2000 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gy
necologists).