Complications in Pelvic Organ Prolapse With 3-Month Versus 6-Month Pessary Care: Pilot Study.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001610
Geovana Volta Giorgenon, Letícia Martineli Galhardo, Camila Carvalho de Araujo, Edilson Benedito de Castro, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato
{"title":"Complications in Pelvic Organ Prolapse With 3-Month Versus 6-Month Pessary Care: Pilot Study.","authors":"Geovana Volta Giorgenon, Letícia Martineli Galhardo, Camila Carvalho de Araujo, Edilson Benedito de Castro, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito, Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Despite evidence emphasizing the necessity of routine care for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using pessaries, the frequency of follow-up is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the presence of complications in women with POP using vaginal pessaries with cleaning and gynecological examination every 3 or 6 months.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This pilot study was a randomized clinical trial of women with advanced POP using a ring pessary. The women were randomized into 2 groups (\"3-month group\" and a \"6-month group\") that returned for evaluation by a health care professional that monitored the vagina, removed the pessary, cleaned it, and reinserted it. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. During their follow-up, the women answered a questionnaire regarding the presence of vaginal symptoms and had a physical examination and vaginal sampling for microbiological analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 women were randomized into 2 groups: the 3-month group (n = 18) and the 6-month group (n = 20). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar except for age, which was 70.7 (±7.4) years in the 3-month group and 74.7 (±6.6) years in the 6-month group (P = 0.022). Regarding physical examination, after 12 months of follow-up, 4 women in each group presented erosions or ulcers in each group, but without difference (P = 1). The presence of bacterial vaginosis was more frequent in the group with cleaning every 6 months (P = 0.026).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The prevalence of ulcerations was similar in both groups with cleaning every 3 or 6 months, but the group with cleaning every 6 months showed a higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001610","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Despite evidence emphasizing the necessity of routine care for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using pessaries, the frequency of follow-up is unclear.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the presence of complications in women with POP using vaginal pessaries with cleaning and gynecological examination every 3 or 6 months.

Study design: This pilot study was a randomized clinical trial of women with advanced POP using a ring pessary. The women were randomized into 2 groups ("3-month group" and a "6-month group") that returned for evaluation by a health care professional that monitored the vagina, removed the pessary, cleaned it, and reinserted it. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. During their follow-up, the women answered a questionnaire regarding the presence of vaginal symptoms and had a physical examination and vaginal sampling for microbiological analysis.

Results: A total of 38 women were randomized into 2 groups: the 3-month group (n = 18) and the 6-month group (n = 20). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar except for age, which was 70.7 (±7.4) years in the 3-month group and 74.7 (±6.6) years in the 6-month group (P = 0.022). Regarding physical examination, after 12 months of follow-up, 4 women in each group presented erosions or ulcers in each group, but without difference (P = 1). The presence of bacterial vaginosis was more frequent in the group with cleaning every 6 months (P = 0.026).

Conclusions: The prevalence of ulcerations was similar in both groups with cleaning every 3 or 6 months, but the group with cleaning every 6 months showed a higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
盆腔脏器脱垂患者使用 3 个月与 6 个月避孕药护理的并发症:试点研究。
重要性:尽管有证据强调有必要对使用阴道塞药的盆腔器官脱垂(POP)妇女进行常规护理,但随访频率尚不明确:本研究旨在比较使用阴道填塞器的 POP 妇女每 3 个月或 6 个月进行清洁和妇科检查时出现并发症的情况:这项试验性研究是一项随机临床试验,对象是使用环形栓的晚期 POP 妇女。这些妇女被随机分为两组("3 个月组 "和 "6 个月组"),由专业医护人员对其进行评估,并对阴道进行监测、取出栓塞、清洗和重新置入。我们收集了社会人口学和临床数据。在随访期间,妇女们回答了有关是否出现阴道症状的问卷,并进行了身体检查和阴道取样微生物分析:结果:共有 38 名妇女被随机分为两组:3 个月组(18 人)和 6 个月组(20 人)。除年龄外,两组基线特征相似,3 个月组为 70.7(±7.4)岁,6 个月组为 74.7(±6.6)岁(P = 0.022)。在体格检查方面,随访 12 个月后,每组各有 4 名妇女出现糜烂或溃疡,但无差异(P = 1)。每 6 个月清洗一次的组别更容易出现细菌性阴道病(P = 0.026):结论:每 3 个月或每 6 个月清洗一次的两组溃疡发生率相似,但每 6 个月清洗一次的一组细菌性阴道病发生率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
At the Scrub Sink: Evaluation of Ureteric Patency During Cystoscopy. Perioperative Opioid Use in Urogynecologic Mesh Removal. URPS Fellowship Learning Objectives for Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, and Scholarly Activity. Implication of Neighborhood Deprivation Index on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management. Online Search Strategies and Results From a Crowdsourced Survey on Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1