-
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2021Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the downward descent of the female pelvic organs into or through the vagina. The symptom that most strongly correlates with and is most...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the downward descent of the female pelvic organs into or through the vagina. The symptom that most strongly correlates with and is most specific for POP is a feeling of vaginal bulging. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is an involuntary loss of urine upon physical exertion or sneezing or coughing. Conservative (non-surgical) treatment options for both conditions include vaginal pessaries. We conducted a health technology assessment of vaginal pessaries for the treatment of POP and SUI, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries, and patient preferences and values.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using ROBIS, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 10-year horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries for individuals with pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence in Ontario. We explored the underlying values, needs, and priorities of those who have lived experience with POP and/or SUI, as well as the preferences and perceptions of both patients and providers of vaginal pessaries.
RESULTS
We included 15 studies in the clinical evidence review. Compared with no treatment for people with SUI, pessaries were associated with a significant improvement in some symptoms at 14 days follow-up (SUI subscore of Urinary Symptom Profile, mean difference -2.20; 95% CI -3.47 to -0.93; GRADE: Very low). Compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), pessaries were associated with no difference in improvement at 12 months follow-up for some symptoms (Urinary Distress Inventory subscale of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16; GRADE: Low). For people with POP, pessaries were associated with a significant improvement in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score and in sexual function compared with PFMT plus feedback/electrical stimulation/lifestyle advice at 12- and 24-month follow ups (GRADE: Low). Pessary continuation rate at 12 months follow up was reported to be 60% (44/74 patients) (GRADE: Very low).When evaluating various POP and SUI treatments in sequential order, pessaries were within the most cost-effective treatment sequence; therefore, it is likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating POP and SUI. There was a high degree of certainty that pessaries were cost-effective in a population with POP, and a moderate degree of certainty in a population with SUI. When the treatment sequence of pessaries and surgery was compared with surgery alone, the pessaries treatment sequence dominates surgery in the cohort with POP, and in the cohort with SUI pessaries had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,033 per QALY gained. The annual budget impact of publicly funding vaginal pessaries in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from $0.3 million in year 1 to $0.5 million in year 5 for POP, and $0.2 million in year 1 to $0.3 million in year 5 for SUI.We included one study in our quantitative evidence review and spoke to 29 people in our direct patient engagement. The evidence indicated that patient preferences vary and that patients accept the risks of their chosen treatment option. The 24 people we spoke with who had direct experience with vaginal pessaries reported that their POP and/or SUI limited their social activities and restricted their activity levels, taking a huge emotional toll. Many were hesitant or even fearful of surgery due to side effects and perceived failure rate of the surgery. Most people reported that pessaries relieved most or all of their symptoms, allowing them to return to their normal daily activities. However, wait times for pessary fittings could be as long as 2 years, and out-of-pocket expenses could be a barrier for people without extended insurance.
CONCLUSIONS
For people with SUI, vaginal pessaries may improve symptoms compared with no treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain. Pessaries may result in little to no difference in longer-term improvement of SUI symptoms compared with PFMT. For people with POP, pessaries may improve some longer-term symptoms, as well as sexual function compared with PFMT. For people with symptomatic POP and SUI, vaginal pessaries may be a cost-effective intervention to be used within a stepped care model (a sequence of interventions followed after the current treatment proves ineffective). We estimate that publicly funding vaginal pessaries in Ontario would result in a total 5-year budget impact of $2.0 million for POP and $1.3 million for SUI. People with POP and/or SUI reported pessary use as being an effective treatment option to manage their symptoms.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Urinary Incontinence, Stress
PubMed: 34055111
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2021To determine the role of progesterone, pessary and cervical cerclage in reducing the risk of (preterm birth) PTB in twin pregnancies and compare these interventions... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the role of progesterone, pessary and cervical cerclage in reducing the risk of (preterm birth) PTB in twin pregnancies and compare these interventions using pairwise and network meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were explored. The inclusion criteria were studies in which twin pregnancies were randomized to an intervention for the prevention of PTB (any type of progesterone, cervical cerclage, cervical pessary, or any combination of these) or to a control group (e.g. placebo or treatment as usual). Interventions of interest were either progesterone [vaginal or oral natural progesterone or intramuscular 17a-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC)], cerclage (McDonald or Shirodkar), or cervical pessary. The primary outcome was PTB < 34 weeks of gestation. Both primary and secondary outcomes were explored in an unselected population of twin pregnancies and in women at higher risk of PTB (defined as those with cervical length <25 mm). Random-effect head-to-head and a multiple-treatment meta-analyses were used to analyze the data and results expressed as risk ratios.
RESULTS
26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. When considering an unselected population of twin pregnancies, vaginal progesterone, intra-muscular17-OHPC or pessary did not reduce the risk of PTB < 34 weeks of gestation (all p > 0.05). When stratifying the analysis for spontaneous PTB, neither pessary, vaginal or intramuscular 17-OHPC were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of PTB compared to controls (all p > 0.05), while there was no study on cerclage which explored this outcome in an unselected population of twin pregnancies. When considering twin pregnancies with short cervical length (≤25 mm), there was no contribution of either pessary, vaginal progesterone, intra-muscular 17-OHPC or cerclage in reducing the risk of overall PTB < 34 weeks of gestation.
CONCLUSIONS
Cervical pessary, progesterone and cerclage do not show a significant effect in reducing the rate of PTB or perinatal morbidity in twins, either when these interventions are applied to an unselected population of twins or in pregnancies with a short cervix.
Topics: Cerclage, Cervical; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Network Meta-Analysis; Pessaries; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Twin; Premature Birth; Progesterone
PubMed: 33946019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.04.023 -
Archivos Espanoles de Urologia Apr 2021Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has a general incidence of > 10% in the female population of the Western world. The pessary is a silicone device, inserted into the vagina to...
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has a general incidence of > 10% in the female population of the Western world. The pessary is a silicone device, inserted into the vagina to provide support to the pelvic organs. It is used as a conservative treatment to improve prolapse symptoms.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of pessary treatment in pelvic organ prolapse through a systematic review of the current literature.MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Scoping Review was carried out based on the PRISMA guidelines for the development of systematic reviews. The PICO research question was asked, the sources of information were selected, and the eligibility criteria were established. Subsequently, the descriptors in health sciences and keywords, combined with Boolean operators, were appliedin each of the search engines. RESULTS: A total of 19 references were included in the analysis of this work. To delimit the data extraction, the information was divided into four dimensions: improvements in symptoms related to POP and quality of life, sexual function; discontinuation, justification for discontinuation and complications. CONCLUSIONS: The pessary produces positive effects on the quality of life of women with POP, with good satisfaction rates. The main reasons for the interruption include: inability to retain the pessary, discomfort, and the desire for surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome; Vagina
PubMed: 33818427
DOI: No ID Found -
Progres En Urologie : Journal de... Nov 2020The aim was to synthesize current knowledge on overactive bladder (OAB) and female pelvic-perineal diseases.
INTRODUCTION
The aim was to synthesize current knowledge on overactive bladder (OAB) and female pelvic-perineal diseases.
METHOD
A systematic literature review based on PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar was conducted in April 2020.
RESULTS
Women with pelvic organ prolapse very often have OAB. Prolapse surgery should be considered if the prolapse is symptomatic and never be indicated in case of overactive bladder symptoms solely. In case of symptomatic prolapse and OAB, pessary and surgical treatments are effective on both pathologies up to 71 % of the cases. OAB may occur in parallel or as part of a menopausal genitourinary syndrome. In the latter case, only local estrogen therapy is effective. OAB may occur alongside stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or be integrated into mixed urinary incontinence. The initial treatment should be based on the most troublesome symptoms. In case of SUI, the outcome of surgical treatment on OAB remains uncertain. De novo, OAB follows prolapse or SUI surgery. It requires investigations to exclude urinary tract infection, bladder outlet obstruction or erosion. The treatment is the same as OAB.
CONCLUSION
The clinician's challenge is to draw a balance between the OAB and a pelvic-perineal pathology in order to adapt the treatment.
Topics: Algorithms; Female; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Perineum; Syndrome; Urinary Bladder, Overactive; Urinary Incontinence, Stress
PubMed: 33220817
DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2020.08.053 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an...
BACKGROUND
Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women. About 40% of women will experience prolapse in their lifetime, with the proportion expected to rise in line with an ageing population. Women experience a variety of troublesome symptoms as a consequence of prolapse, including a feeling of 'something coming down' into the vagina, pain, urinary symptoms, bowel symptoms and sexual difficulties. Treatment for prolapse includes surgery, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and vaginal pessaries. Vaginal pessaries are passive mechanical devices designed to support the vagina and hold the prolapsed organs back in the anatomically correct position. The most commonly used pessaries are made from polyvinyl-chloride, polythene, silicone or latex. Pessaries are frequently used by clinicians with high numbers of clinicians offering a pessary as first-line treatment for prolapse. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2003 and last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations of this intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 January 2020). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials which included a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse in at least one arm of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and carried out GRADE assessments with arbitration from a third review author if necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies involving a total of 478 women with various stages of prolapse, all of which took place in high-income countries. In one trial, only six of the 113 recruited women consented to random assignment to an intervention and no data are available for those six women. We could not perform any meta-analysis because each of the trials addressed a different comparison. None of the trials reported data about perceived resolution of prolapse symptoms or about psychological outcome measures. All studies reported data about perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms. Generally, the trials were at high risk of performance bias, due to lack of blinding, and low risk of selection bias. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for imprecision resulting from the low numbers of women participating in the trials. Pessary versus no treatment: at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain about the effect of pessaries compared with no treatment on perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms (mean difference (MD) in questionnaire scores -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.61 to 0.55; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.09; 27 women; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In this comparison we did not find any evidence relating to prolapse-specific quality of life or to the number of women experiencing adverse events (abnormal vaginal bleeding or de novo voiding difficulty). Pessary versus pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): at 12 months' follow-up, we are uncertain if there is a difference between pessaries and PFMT in terms of women's perceived improvement in prolapse symptoms (MD -9.60, 95% CI -22.53 to 3.33; 137 women; low-certainty evidence), prolapse-specific quality of life (MD -3.30, 95% CI -8.70 to 15.30; 1 study; 116 women; low-certainty evidence), or cure or improvement of sexual problems (MD -2.30, 95% -5.20 to 0.60; 1 study; 48 women; low-certainty evidence). Pessaries may result in a large increase in risk of adverse events compared with PFMT (RR 75.25, 95% CI 4.70 to 1205.45; 1 study; 97 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included increased vaginal discharge, and/or increased urinary incontinence and/or erosion or irritation of the vaginal walls. Pessary plus PFMT versus PFMT alone: at 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably leads to more women perceiving improvement in their prolapse symptoms compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.94; 1 study; 260 women; moderate-certainty evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, pessary plus PFMT probably improves women's prolapse-specific quality of life compared with PFMT alone (median (interquartile range (IQR)) POPIQ score: pessary plus PFMT 0.3 (0 to 22.2); 132 women; PFMT only 8.9 (0 to 64.9); 128 women; P = 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence). Pessary plus PFMT may slightly increase the risk of abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with PFMT alone (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.91; 1 study; 260 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if pessary plus PFMT has any effect on the risk of de novo voiding difficulty compared with PFMT alone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.19; 1 study; 189 women; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if pessaries improve pelvic organ prolapse symptoms for women compared with no treatment or PFMT but pessaries in addition to PFMT probably improve women's pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and prolapse-specific quality of life. However, there may be an increased risk of adverse events with pessaries compared to PFMT. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure clinically important outcomes such as prolapse specific quality of life and resolution of prolapse symptoms. The review found two relevant economic evaluations. Of these, one assessed the cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment, expectant management and surgical procedures, and the other compared pessary treatment to PFMT.
Topics: Bias; Female; Humans; Muscle Strength; Pelvic Floor; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Prolapse; Urethral Diseases; Urinary Bladder Diseases; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 33207004
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub4 -
Turkish Journal of Urology Nov 2020Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common problem in women that affects their quality of life. According to the current evidence, 15%-50% of severe pelvic organ... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common problem in women that affects their quality of life. According to the current evidence, 15%-50% of severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries lead to de novo urinary incontinence (UI). This study aimed at determining the risk factors and characteristics of de novo SUI after POP surgeries in a systematic review.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic search of articles in English related to the risk of UI after POP surgery published until December 2019 in the selected bibliographic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest.
RESULTS
The initial search resulted in 2,363 studies, and after reviewing the titles and abstracts, 146 studies were identified. Moreover, 2 independent reviewers, using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, evaluated the risk of biases in the selected studies. Finally, 40 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most important predictors of UI after POP surgery were positive pessary testing, age >50 years, and maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) <60 cmHO.
CONCLUSION
Positive pessary testing, older age, and low MUCP were the most important risk factors for de novo incontinence after POP surgeries.
PubMed: 32976089
DOI: 10.5152/tud.2020.20291 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Preterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance....
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth (PTB) remains the foremost global cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Thus, the prevention of spontaneous PTB still remains of critical importance. In an attempt to prevent PTB in singleton pregnancies, cervical cerclage, in combination with other treatments, has been advocated. This is because, cervical cerclage is an intervention that is commonly recommended in women with a short cervix at high risk of preterm birth but, despite this, many women still deliver prematurely, as the biological mechanism is incompletely understood. Additionally, previous Cochrane Reviews have been published on the effectiveness of cervical cerclage in singleton and multiple pregnancies, however, none has evaluated the effectiveness of using cervical cerclage in combination with other treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether antibiotics administration, vaginal pessary, reinforcing or second cerclage placement, tocolytic, progesterone, or other interventions at the time of cervical cerclage placement prolong singleton gestation in women at high risk of pregnancy loss based on prior history and/or ultrasound finding of 'short cervix' and/or physical examination. History-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 12 and 15 weeks gestation based solely on poor prior obstetrical history, e.g. multiple second trimester losses due to painless dilatation. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation for transvaginal ultrasound cervical length < 20 mm in a woman without cervical dilatation. Physical exam-indicated cerclage is defined as a cerclage placed usually between 16 and 23 weeks gestation because of cervical dilatation of one or more centimetres detected on physical (manual) examination.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (26 September 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included published, unpublished or ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCTs). Studies using a cluster-RCT design were also eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. We excluded quasi-RCTs (e.g. those randomised by date of birth or hospital number) and studies using a cross-over design. We also excluded studies that specified addition of the combination therapy after cervical cerclage because the woman subsequently became symptomatic. We included studies comparing cervical cerclage in combination with one, two or more interventions with cervical cerclage alone in singleton pregnancies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles, selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for this review's main outcomes. Data were checked for accuracy. Standard Cochrane review methods were used throughout.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two studies (involving a total of 73 women) comparing cervical cerclage alone to a different comparator. We also identified three ongoing studies (one investigating vaginal progesterone after cerclage, and two investigating cerclage plus pessary). One study (20 women), conducted in the UK, comparing cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (salbutamol) with cervical cerclage alone in women with singleton pregnancy did not provide any useable data for this review. The other study (involving 53 women, with data from 50 women) took place in the USA and compared cervical cerclage in combination with a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin or clindamycin) versus cervical cerclage alone - this study did provide useable data for this review (and the study authors also provided additional data on request) but meta-analyses were not possible. This study was generally at a low risk of bias, apart from issues relating to blinding. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for serious risk of bias and imprecision (few participants, few events and wide 95% confidence intervals). Cervical cerclage in combination with an antibiotic and tocolytic versus cervical cerclage alone (one study, 50 women/babies) We are unclear about the effect of cervical cerclage in combination with antibiotics and a tocolytic compared with cervical cerclage alone on the risk of serious neonatal morbidity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; very low-certainty evidence); perinatal loss (data for miscarriage and stillbirth only - data not available for neonatal death) (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.64; very low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth < 34 completed weeks of pregnancy (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.40; very low-certainty evidence). There were no stillbirths (intrauterine death at 24 or more weeks). The trial authors did not report on the numbers of babies discharged home healthy (without obvious pathology) or on the risk of neonatal death.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of combining a tocolytic (indomethacin) and antibiotics (cefazolin/clindamycin) with cervical cerclage compared with cervical cerclage alone for preventing spontaneous PTB in women with singleton pregnancies. Future studies should recruit sufficient numbers of women to provide meaningful results and should measure neonatal death and numbers of babies discharged home healthy, as well as other important outcomes listed in this review. We did not identify any studies looking at other treatments in combination with cervical cerclage. Future research needs to focus on the role of other interventions such as vaginal support pessary, reinforcing or second cervical cerclage placement, 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or dydrogesterone or vaginal micronised progesterone, omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and bed rest.
Topics: Albuterol; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Cefazolin; Cerclage, Cervical; Clindamycin; Female; Humans; Indomethacin; Opium; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stillbirth; Tocolytic Agents
PubMed: 32970845
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012871.pub2 -
Neurourology and Urodynamics Sep 2020To identify the factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting and reasons for discontinuation for women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
To identify the factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting and reasons for discontinuation for women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
METHODS
This systematic review is registered at the PROSPERO database. We have included all studies, regardless of the study design whose primary outcomes were factors associated with unsuccessful pessary fitting and discontinuation for symptomatic POP women. Exclusion criteria were case series, literature reviews, other forms of conservative treatment. Data selection/extraction was performed by two investigators. For pessary fitting, a meta-analysis was performed for at least two studies pooled in a forest plot. The risk of bias was classified by the ROBINS-I and ROB-2 classification.
RESULTS
From 409 studies retrieved after data search, only twenty-one articles remained for final analysis (18 cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study, and 2 RCTs). Meta-analysis was performed in nine studies for pessary fitting and the associated factors were: higher body mass index (BMI) (MD = 0.688 [0.233-1.143]; P = .03; i = 0%), previous reconstructive surgery (OR = 1.705 [1.016-2.860]; P = .043; i = 69%) and advanced POP (OR = 4.2 [2.9-6.1]; P < .05; i = 92%). Older age, larger total vaginal length (TVL), and genital hiatus and previous hysterectomy were not associated factors. Regarding discontinuation, thirteen reasons were quoted, and the most frequent were: the desire for surgical treatment (111/3.601), pessary extrusion (385/3.601), and pain/discomfort (163/3.601).
CONCLUSION
Obese, previously reconstructive pelvic surgery, advanced prolapse are at risk for unsuccessful pessary fitting. Pain is the most quoted reason for discontinuation. These pooled data may help clinicians to identify patients that may not succeed in their attempt for pessary treatment.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries; Treatment Failure; Urologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 32649024
DOI: 10.1002/nau.24458 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Nov 2020Several studies acknowledge that the presence of amniotic fluid sludge (AFS) is an independent predictive factor for preterm birth. In the present systematic review, we...
INTRODUCTION
Several studies acknowledge that the presence of amniotic fluid sludge (AFS) is an independent predictive factor for preterm birth. In the present systematic review, we summarize research that focuses on the comparison of pregnancy outcomes among women with and without AFS.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched from inception. Both observational and randomized controlled studies were considered eligible provided that they reported data on pregnancy outcomes among women with and without AFS. Outcomes were not meta-analyzed because of the high heterogeneity in terms of selected population and outcome reporting.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies of 2432 women were included in this review. Six studies evaluated women at high risk for preterm birth. Pregnancies complicated by AFS had a lower gestational age at delivery and increased incidence of preterm delivery at <37 weeks. Neonatal death rates and admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit were also increased. Evidence in low-risk women, those with signs of preterm labor, in those carrying twins, and in women with cervical cerclage or Arabin pessary was extremely limited.
CONCLUSIONS
Women with AFS seem to deliver at an earlier gestational age, and preterm birth rates are also increased. Limited data seem to point to neonatal morbidity and mortality being increased. However, the presence of a direct association should not be assumed because the evidence is not adjusted for the presence of confounders.
Topics: Amniotic Fluid; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Incompetence
PubMed: 32367525
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13893 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Apr 2020To identify the knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and healthcare professionals in relation to pessary use for POP. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify the knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and healthcare professionals in relation to pessary use for POP.
METHOD
This systematic review was carried out in agreement with PRISMA recommendations. PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, CAPES Periodicals and CINAHL databases were searched for studies without date or language limitations. Search strategies were developed for identifying studies examining knowledge, attitudes and practice toward vaginal pessaries use. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify eligible studies. Data extraction was performed independently in duplicate into a standardized form. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews [CRD42018114236].
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included. Knowledge and practice were the main domains investigated among patients and professionals, respectively. The results demonstrated poor patient knowledge; however, in urogynecologic patients, knowledge was better. Previous consultation with a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery specialist (p = .001) and a higher level of education (p = .006) were associated with improved knowledge of pessary use. Fear of vaginal discharge, irritation, bleeding, and pain were factors that supported the decision not to use a pessary. Previous consultation with a generalist gynecologist (p = .03)and a lower level of education (p = .03) predicted aversion to pessary use. Providers demonstrated adequate knowledge and recommended pessary in 86.4% to 98.0% of cases. Having specialist and pessary management training were some factors that influenced a better attitude towards pessaries among health professionals.
CONCLUSION
The knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and health care providers about pessary use are seldom investigated. Developing a psychometrically valid instrument for assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practice is desirable to examine the complex interactions between these three constructs, expose barriers to pessary care, and develop targeted educational interventions.
Topics: Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Pessaries
PubMed: 32113060
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.02.016