-
International Urogynecology Journal Feb 2022Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common and associated with sexual dysfunction. Vaginal pessaries are an effective treatment for POP, but their impact on sexual function... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common and associated with sexual dysfunction. Vaginal pessaries are an effective treatment for POP, but their impact on sexual function is not well established. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the impact of vaginal pessaries used for POP on female sexual function.
METHODS
Systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. A comprehensive search was conducted across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov , The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Open Grey and Scopus Citation Database. Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that assessed sexual function in women pre- and post-pessary treatment for POP were included, assessed for risk of bias and their results synthesised.
RESULTS
A total of 1,945 titles and abstracts were screened, 104 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 14 studies were included in the narrative analysis and 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results suggest that, in sexually active women, there is no evidence of a deterioration in sexual function and some evidence of an improvement.
DISCUSSION
This review offers reassurance that in sexually active women who successfully use a pessary for treatment of their prolapse, there is no deterioration in sexual function. There is some evidence of an improvement in sexual function, but given the clinical heterogeneity in the studies included, caution should be taken in generalising these findings.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34982188
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-05059-4 -
BMJ Open Jul 2022Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be effectively managed using a pessary. A scoping review found that pessary self-management appears to benefit women with no increased... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be effectively managed using a pessary. A scoping review found that pessary self-management appears to benefit women with no increased risk. Despite this, many are unwilling to self-manage their pessary. At present, there is a lack of understanding about what affects willingness to self-manage a pessary. However, there may be relevant, transferable findings from other literature about barriers to the self-management of other chronic conditions. Therefore, this systematic review aims to identify, appraise and synthesise the findings of published qualitative research exploring the barriers and facilitators to self-management of chronic conditions reported by women.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The systematic review will be conducted and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a guide for the systematic review of qualitative data. A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo will be undertaken to identify relevant articles that meet the eligibility criteria using the search terms 'Women', 'Woman' 'Female,' 'Chronic', 'Long-term', 'Disease', 'Illness', 'Condition' 'Health,' 'Self-management,' 'Qualitative,' 'Barrier' and 'Facilitator'. A hand search of the reference list of non-original research identified during the search but excluded will be conducted for additional publications, which meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies published before 2005 and those not available in English will be excluded. Data relevant to the topic will be extracted and critical appraisal of all included publications undertaken.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
No ethical or Health Research Authority approval is required to undertake the systematic review. The systematic review findings will be disseminated by publication. The findings will also inform subsequent exploratory work regarding pessary self-management.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022327643.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Female; Humans; Qualitative Research; Research Design; Self-Management
PubMed: 35858726
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061655 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2020Randomized controlled trials that have assessed the efficacy of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women have reported conflicting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials that have assessed the efficacy of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth in asymptomatic high-risk women have reported conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in asymptomatic high-risk women.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, CINAHL, and LILACS (from their inception to October 31, 2019), Cochrane databases, Google Scholar, bibliographies, and conference proceedings.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials that compared cervical pessary with standard care (no pessary) or alternative interventions in asymptomatic women at high risk for preterm birth.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
The systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook guidelines. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included adverse pregnancy, maternal, and perinatal outcomes. Pooled relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (4687 women and 7167 fetuses/infants) met the inclusion criteria: 8 evaluated pessary vs no pessary in women with a short cervix, 2 assessed pessary vs no pessary in unselected multiple gestations, and 2 compared pessary vs vaginal progesterone in women with a short cervix. There were no significant differences between the pessary and no pessary groups in the risk of spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation among singleton gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49; 6 trials, 1982 women; low-quality evidence), unselected twin gestations (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.41; 1 trial, 1177 women; moderate-quality evidence), twin gestations with a cervical length <38 mm (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.36; 3 trials, 1128 women; low-quality evidence), and twin gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk; 0.72, 95% confidence interval, 0.25-2.06; 2 trials, 348 women; low-quality evidence). Overall, no significant differences were observed between the pessary and no pessary groups in preterm birth <37, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, and most adverse pregnancy, maternal, and perinatal outcomes (low- to moderate-quality evidence for most outcomes). There were no significant differences in the risk of spontaneous preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation between pessary and vaginal progesterone in singleton gestations with a cervical length ≤25 mm (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.83; 1 trial, 246 women; low-quality evidence) and twin gestations with a cervical length <38 mm (relative risk, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.18; 1 trial, 297 women; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal discharge was significantly more frequent in the pessary group than in the no pessary and vaginal progesterone groups (relative risks, ∼2.20; high-quality evidence).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence does not support the use of cervical pessary to prevent preterm birth or to improve perinatal outcomes in singleton or twin gestations with a short cervix and in unselected twin gestations.
Topics: Asymptomatic Diseases; Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Pessaries; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 32027880
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.12.266 -
Arab Journal of Urology Mar 2019: To review lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which include a large variety of bladder complaints, in women with simultaneous pelvic organ prolapse (POP). : This... (Review)
Review
: To review lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which include a large variety of bladder complaints, in women with simultaneous pelvic organ prolapse (POP). : This article is a systematic review of the current literature on LUTS occurring simultaneously with POP following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. : The prevalence of both conditions is high, but they occur more frequently together than can be explained by chance. It appears that POP is in some women causative of overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, as in many women correction of the POP resolves the bladder symptoms and small studies of women with detrusor underactivity also demonstrate resolution of symptoms. The most plausible explanation for the relationship is that POP causes bladder outlet obstruction, which results in excess bladder irritability or poor contractility. However, not all women have resolution of their OAB symptoms and some women develop them after POP repair, so this explanation requires more in depth study. : Women with both LUTS and symptomatic POP should probably have their POP targeted, as its reduction either via surgery or pessary can correct the LUTS. However, no studies have addressed asymptomatic POP, so it is unclear if treating POP in these instances is of benefit. BOO: bladder outlet obstruction; DO: detrusor overactivity; DU: detrusor underactivity; OAB: overactive bladder; PQ: detrusor pressure at maximum urinary flow; POP: pelvic organ prolapse; PVR: post-void residual urine volume; RR: relative risk; SUFU: Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction; UDS: urodynamic studies; (S)(U)UI: (stress) (urgency) urinary incontinence.
PubMed: 33110659
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1589929 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Jun 2023Forty percent of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime. Vaginal pessaries are considered the first line of treatment in selected patients. Major complications... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Forty percent of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime. Vaginal pessaries are considered the first line of treatment in selected patients. Major complications of vaginal pessaries rarely occur.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched from 1961 to 2022 for major complications of vaginal pessaries using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms. The keywords were pessary or pessaries and: vaginal discharge, incontinence, entrapment, urinary infections, fistula, complications, and vaginal infection. The exclusion criteria were other languages than English, pregnancy, complications without a prior history of pessary placement, pessaries unregistered for clinical practice (herbal pessaries), or male patients. The extracted data included symptoms, findings upon examination, infection, type of complication, extragenital symptoms, and treatment.
RESULTS
We identified 1874 abstracts and full text articles; 54 were assessed for eligibility and 49 met the inclusion criteria. These 49 studies included data from 66 patients with pessary complications amenable to surgical correction. Clavien-Dindo classification was used to grade the complications. Most patients presented with vaginal symptoms such as bleeding, discharge, or ulceration. The most frequent complications were pessary incarceration and fistulas. Surgical treatment included removal of the pessary under local or general anesthesia, fistula repair, hysterectomy and vaginal repair, and the management of bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
Pessaries are a reasonable and durable treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Complications are rare. Routine follow-ups are necessary. The ideal patient candidate must be able to remove and reintroduce their pessary on a regular basis; if not, this must be performed by a healthcare worker at regular intervals.
PubMed: 37511669
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071056 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed defecation and sexual dysfunction. Interventions for prevention and conservative management include lifestyle measures, pelvic floor muscle training, and pessary use. We conducted this review to assess the surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any surgical intervention compared with another surgical intervention for management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched April 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were subjective awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for any prolapse, and objectively determined recurrent posterior wall prolapse.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 RCTs evaluating 1099 women. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of evidence quality were risk of bias (associated mainly with performance, detection, and attrition biases) and imprecision (associated with small overall sample sizes and low event rates).Transanal repair versus transvaginal repair (four RCTs; n = 191; six months' to four years' follow-up)Awareness of prolapse is probably more common after the transanal approach (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 7.70; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). If 10% of women are aware of prolapse after transvaginal repair, between 10% and 79% are likely to be aware after transanal repair.Repeat surgery for any prolapse: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.88; 1 RCT; n = 57; low-quality evidence).Recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse is probably more likely after transanal repair (RR 4.12, 95% CI 1.56 to 10.88; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I = 35%; moderate-quality evidence). If 10% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after transvaginal repair, between 16% and 100% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after transanal repair.Postoperative obstructed defecation is probably more likely with transanal repair (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.79; 3 RCTs; n = 113; I = 10%; low-quality evidence).Postoperative dyspareunia: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 2 RCTs; n = 80; I = 5%; moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative complications: Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of any differences between groups (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 13.54; 3 RCTs; n = 135; I = 37%; low-quality evidence). If 2% of women have complications after transvaginal repair, then between 2% and 21% are likely to have complications after transanal repair.Evidence shows no clear differences between groups in operating time (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 1.49, 95% CI -11.83 to 8.84; 3 RCTs; n = 137; I = 90%; very low-quality evidence).Biological graft versus native tissue repairEvidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62; 2 RCTs; n = 181; I = 13%; moderate-quality evidence) or repeat surgery for any prolapse (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.97; 2 RCTs; n = 271; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 3 RCTs; n = 377; I = 6%; moderate-quality evidence); if 13% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after native tissue repair, between 4% and 13% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after biological graft. Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of postoperative obstructed defecation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 2 RCTs; n = 172; I = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) or postoperative dyspareunia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.25; 2 RCTs; n = 152; I = 74%; low-quality evidence). Postoperative complications were more common with biological repair (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; 3 RCTs; n = 448; I = 0%; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsSingle RCTs compared site-specific vaginal repair versus midline fascial plication (n = 74), absorbable graft versus native tissue repair (n = 132), synthetic graft versus native tissue repair (n = 191), and levator ani plication versus midline fascial plication (n = 52). Data were scanty, and evidence was insufficient to show any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of any of these interventions. The mesh exposure rate in the synthetic group compared with the native tissue group was 7%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Transvaginal repair may be more effective than transanal repair for posterior wall prolapse in preventing recurrence of prolapse, in the light of both objective and subjective measures. However, data on adverse effects were scanty. Evidence was insufficient to permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of other types of surgery. Evidence does not support the utilisation of any mesh or graft materials at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market may limit the generalisability of our findings.
Topics: Awareness; Dyspareunia; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Reoperation; Surgical Mesh; Urinary Incontinence, Stress; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 29502352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012975 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2017To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical pessary for preventing spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) in twin pregnancies with an asymptomatic transvaginal ultrasound... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical pessary for preventing spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) in twin pregnancies with an asymptomatic transvaginal ultrasound cervical length (TVU CL) in the second trimester.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis including all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the use of cervical pessary (i.e. intervention group) with expectant management (i.e. control group). The primary outcome was incidence of SPTB <34 weeks.
RESULTS
Three trials, including 481 twin pregnancies with short cervix, were analyzed. Two RCTs defined short cervix as TVU CL ≤25 mm and one as TVU CL ≤38 mm. Pessary was not associated with prevention of SPTB, and the mean gestational age at delivery and the mean latency were similar in the pessary group compared to the control group. Moreover, no benefits were noticed in neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of the Arabin pessary in twin pregnancies with short TVU CL at 16-24 weeks does not prevent SPTB or improve perinatal outcome.
Topics: Cervical Length Measurement; Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Organ Size; Pessaries; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Twin; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27915496
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1268595 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022To investigate the risk of preterm birth in women with a placenta previa or a low-lying placenta for different cut-offs of gestational age and to evaluate preventive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the risk of preterm birth in women with a placenta previa or a low-lying placenta for different cut-offs of gestational age and to evaluate preventive interventions.
SEARCH AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov were searched until December 2021. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies assessing preterm birth in women with placenta previa or low-lying placenta with a placental edge within 2 cm of the internal os in the second or third trimester were eligible for inclusion. Pooled proportions and odds ratios for the risk of preterm birth before 37, 34, 32 and 28 weeks of gestation were calculated. Additionally, the results of the evaluation of preventive interventions for preterm birth in these women are described.
RESULTS
In total, 34 studies were included, 24 reporting on preterm birth and 9 on preventive interventions. The pooled proportions were 46% (95% CI [39 - 53%]), 17% (95% CI [11 - 25%]), 10% (95% CI [7 - 13%]) and 2% (95% CI [1 - 3%]), regarding preterm birth <37, <34, <32 and <28 weeks in women with placenta previa. For low-lying placentas the risk of preterm birth was 30% (95% CI [19 - 43%]) and 1% (95% CI [0 - 6%]) before 37 and 34 weeks, respectively. Women with a placenta previa were more likely to have a preterm birth compared to women with a low-lying placenta or women without a placenta previa for all gestational ages. The studies about preventive interventions all showed potential prolongation of pregnancy with the use of intramuscular progesterone, intramuscular progesterone + cerclage or pessary.
CONCLUSIONS
Both women with a placenta previa and a low-lying placenta have an increased risk of preterm birth. This increased risk is consistent across all severities of preterm birth between 28-37 weeks of gestation. Women with placenta previa have a higher risk of preterm birth than women with a low-lying placenta have. Cervical cerclage, pessary and intramuscular progesterone all might have benefit for both women with placenta previa and low-lying placenta, but data in this population are lacking and inconsistent, so that solid conclusions about their effectiveness cannot be drawn.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019123675.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Placenta; Placenta Previa; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Progesterone
PubMed: 36120450
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.921220 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP is common, limited supportive data can be found in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative interventions related to these procedures. The main goal of perioperative interventions is to reduce the rate of adverse events while improving women's outcomes following surgical intervention for prolapse. A broad spectrum of perioperative interventions are available, and although the benefits of interventions such as prophylactic antibiotics before abdominal surgery are well established, others are unique to women undergoing POP surgeries and as such need to be investigated separately.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to compare the safety and effectiveness of a range of perioperative interventions versus other interventions or no intervention (control group) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 November 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse that compared a perioperative intervention related to pelvic organ prolapse surgery versus no treatment or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were objective failure at any site and subjective postoperative prolapse symptoms. We also measured adverse effects, focusing on intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, and postoperative urinary tract infection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs that compared eight different interventions versus no treatment for 1992 women in five countries. Most interventions were assessed by only one RCT with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate. The main limitation was imprecision, associated with small sample sizes and low event rates.Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with no treatment (three RCTs) - peri-operative intervention The simplest of the PFMT programmes required women to attend six perioperative consultations in the three months surrounding prolapse surgery. Trial results provided no clear evidence of a difference between groups in objective failure at any site at 12 to 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.54; two RCTs, 327 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to awareness of prolapse, findings were inconsistent. One RCT found no evidence of a difference between groups at 24 months (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; one RCT, 305 women; low-quality evidence), and a second small RCT reported symptom reduction from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Questionnaire completed by the intervention group at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -3.90, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.69; one RCT, 27 women; low-quality evidence). Researchers found no clear differences between groups at 24-month follow-up in rates of repeat surgery (or pessary) for prolapse (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.02; one RCT, 316 women; low-quality evidence).Other interventionsSingle RCTs evaluated the following interventions: preoperative guided imagery (N = 44); injection of vasoconstrictor agent at commencement of vaginal prolapse surgery (N = 76); ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension (N = 91); vaginal pack (N = 116); prophylactic antibiotics for women requiring postoperative urinary catheterisation (N = 159); and postoperative vaginal dilators (N = 60).Two RCTs evaluated bowel preparation (N = 298), and four RCTs assessed the method and timing of postoperative catheterisation (N = 514) - all in different comparisons.None of these studies reported our primary review outcomes. One study reported intraoperative blood loss and suggested that vaginal injection of vasoconstrictors at commencement of surgery may reduce blood loss by a mean of about 30 mL. Another study reported intraoperative ureteral injury and found no clear evidence that ureteral stent placement reduces ureteral injury. Three RCTs reported postoperative urinary tract infection and found no conclusive evidence that rates of urinary tract infection were influenced by use of a vaginal pack, prophylactic antibiotics, or vaginal dilators. Other studies did not report these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was a paucity of data about perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. A structured programme of pelvic floor muscle training before and after prolapse surgery did not consistently demonstrate any benefit for the intervention; however, this finding is based on the results of two small studies. With regard to other interventions (preoperative bowel preparation and injection of vasoconstrictor agent, ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension, postoperative vaginal pack insertion, use of vaginal dilators, prophylactic antibiotics for postoperative catheter care), we found no evidence regarding rates of recurrent prolapse and no clear evidence that these interventions were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, or postoperative urinary tract infection.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Exercise; Female; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Perioperative Care; Pessaries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Reoperation; Stents; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 30121957
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013105 -
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine :... Aug 2017To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical pessary for preventing spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) in singleton gestations with a second trimester short cervix. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical pessary for preventing spontaneous preterm birth (SPTB) in singleton gestations with a second trimester short cervix.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from their inception until February 2016. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the use of the cervical pessary with expectant management in singletons pregnancies with transvaginal ultrasound cervical length (TVU CL) ≤25 mm. The primary outcome was incidence of SPTB <34 weeks. The summary measures were reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Three RCTs (n = 1,420) were included. The mean gestational age (GA) at randomization was approximately 22 weeks. The Arabin pessary was used as intervention in all three trials, and was removed by vaginal examination at approximately 37 weeks. Cervical pessary was not associated with prevention of SPTB <37 (20.2% vs 50.2%; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.09), <34, <32, and <28 weeks, compared to no pessary. No differences were found in the mean of GA at, interval from randomization to delivery, incidence of preterm premature rupture of membranes and of cesarean delivery, and in neonatal outcomes. The Arabin pessary was associated with a significantly higher risk of vaginal discharge.
CONCLUSIONS
In singleton pregnancies with a TVU CL ≤25mm at 20 -24 weeks, the Arabin pessary does not reduce the rate of spontaneous preterm delivery or improve perinatal outcome. Individual patient data meta-analysis may clarify whether cervical pessary may be beneficial in subgroups, such as only singleton gestations without prior SPTB or by different CL cutoffs.
Topics: Cervical Length Measurement; Cervix Uteri; Female; Humans; Pessaries; Pregnancy; Premature Birth
PubMed: 28398701
DOI: 10.7863/ultra.16.08054