RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is effective and safe, but long-term continuation is low. Pain and vaginal discharge may play a role. This study was aimed at evaluating vaginal discharge and pain during pessary cleaning in an outpatient setting and in continuous pessary use. METHODS: Women with POP who attended the outpatient clinic for pessary cleaning between January and October 2021 were included. Primary outcome was pain during removal and reinsertion of the pessary, measured by an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcome was vaginal discharge, measured by the NRS and Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGI-C). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify associated variables for pain and discharge. RESULTS: A total of 150 women were included. Mean NRS during pessary removal was 4.3 (± 2.7), with 25% of women scoring a 7 or higher. Mean NRS during reinsertion was 1.8 (± 2.0). A smaller genital hiatus and presence of vaginal atrophy or vulvar skin disease were associated with pain during pessary removal. Mean NRS for vaginal discharge was 2.5 (± 2.3). Twenty-five percent of women reported that their vaginal discharge was "(very) much worse" than before they used a pessary. Presence of vaginal erosions was associated with vaginal discharge in this study population. CONCLUSIONS: Removing a pessary in an outpatient setting is a painful procedure for many women who use a pessary continuously. Moreover, 25% of these women experience an increase in vaginal discharge while using a pessary. Future research should focus on reducing these disadvantages.
Asunto(s)
Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico , Excreción Vaginal , Humanos , Femenino , Pesarios/efectos adversos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Excreción Vaginal/etiología , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/terapia , Dolor/etiologíaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Based on nationwide recommended questionnaires for women with pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD), we developed a web-based questionnaire (WBQ) that can be sent to women prior to their first visit. We hypothesized that using this WBQ would contribute to a more efficient first visit. Furthermore, we were interested in the satisfaction of patients who used the WBQ. METHODS: Women referred for PFD were randomized between WBQ and no questionnaire. Time spent per consultation was recorded in total and in split times for history taking, physical examination, counseling, and administration. Patient experience was evaluated by a standardized telephone interview. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight women were randomized: 64 in the WBQ group and 64 in the control group. History taking was significantly shorter in the WBQ group [mean difference (MD) -1 m 32 s; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -2:41 to -0:23], and time for counseling was significantly longer (MD 1 m 21 s; 95 % CI 0:06-2:37). Overall time of the consultation was equal. The need for an additional visit tended to be less frequent in the WBQ group [53 % versus 64 %; relative risk (RR) 1.3, 95 % CI 0.8-2.0]. Forty-nine percent of women considered the WBQ time consuming without adding value. CONCLUSIONS: The WBQ contributed to a slightly more efficient use of the first consultation. While differences were small and patient satisfaction was low, other benefits of the WBQ should define whether the WBQ will be introduced.