Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 24-month efficacy of pessary or surgery as the primary treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). DESIGN: Multicentre prospective comparative cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-two Dutch hospitals. POPULATION: Women referred with symptomatic POP of stage ≥2 and moderate-to-severe POP symptoms. METHODS: The primary outcome was subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up according to the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcomes included improvement in prolapse-related symptoms measured with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), improvement in subjective severeness of symptoms according to the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) scale and crossover between therapies. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of adverse events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: PGI-I at 24 months. RESULTS: We included 539 women, with 335 women (62.2%) in the pessary arm and 204 women (37.8%) in the surgery arm. After 24 months, subjective improvement was reported by 134 women (83.8%) in the surgery group compared with 180 women (74.4%) in the pessary group (risk difference 9.4%, 95% CI 1.4-17.3%, P < 0.01). Seventy-nine women (23.6%) switched from pessary to surgery and 22 women (10.8%) in the surgery group underwent additional treatment. Both groups showed a significant reduction in bothersome POP symptoms (P ≤ 0.01) and a reduction in the perceived severity of symptoms (P ≤ 0.001) compared with the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more women in the surgery group reported a subjective improvement after 24 months. Both therapies, however, showed a clinically significant improvement of prolapse symptoms. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Pessary treatment and vaginal surgery are both efficacious in reducing the presence and severity of prolapse symptoms, although the chance of significant improvement is higher following surgery.
