Pessary use in advanced pelvic organ prolapse

Kenneth Powers, George Lazarou, Andrea Wang, Julie LaCombe, Giti Bensinger, Wilma M. Greston, Magdy S. Mikhail

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

51 Scopus citations


The objective of this study was to review our experience with pessary use for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Charts of patients treated for Stage III and IV prolapse were reviewed. Comparisons were made between patients who tried or refused pessary use. A successful trial of pessary was defined by continued use; a failed trial was defined by a patient's discontinued use. Thirty-two patients tried a pessary; 45 refused. Patients who refused a pessary were younger, had lesser degree of prolapse, and more often had urinary incontinence. Most patients (62.5%) continued pessary use and avoided surgery. Unsuccessful trial of pessary resorting to surgery included four patients (33%) with unwillingness to maintain, three patients (25%) with inability to retain and two patients (17%) with vaginal erosion and/or discharge. Our findings suggest that pessary use is an acceptable first-line option for treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)160-164
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Urogynecology Journal
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2006
Externally publishedYes


  • Advanced pelvic organ prolapse
  • Pessary
  • Procidentia


Dive into the research topics of 'Pessary use in advanced pelvic organ prolapse'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this