<strong>Background:</strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) impacts the sufferers</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">...<strong>Background:</strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) impacts the sufferers</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">’</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> quality of life negatively. There is a preference for a mechanical device in certain conditions though the definitive management of POP is surgical</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">.</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> <b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Objectives: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">We conducted the study to evaluate the outcome of management of POP using mechanical devices.</span></span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Methods: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">It was a prospective study. It took place in the gynecology unit of the Bowen University Teaching Hospital Ogbomoso between May 2014 and April 2019. We followed up </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">with </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">eligible patients who opted for pessary use for a median duration of 18 months (Range 12</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">-</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">84</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">months). We excluded those who refuse to participate in the study. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Of the</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">127 patients</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">with</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">symptomatic POP, seventy-five (59.1%) opted for the use of mechanical devices, and 70 successfully retained them four weeks after insertion. We lost Six (9.2%) patients to follow up. Of the 64 women included in the analysis, 16 (25%) discontinued use at some point after four weeks, whereas 36 (56.3%) used the pessary successfully throughout the follow-up period. Overall, 12.1% of the women experienced minor complications (6.9% pain or discomfort, 3.2% excoriation or bleeding, and 2.0% dis-impaction or constipation). After cessation of pessary use, 12 (25%) of the 48 women chose surgery, and 10 (20.8%) chose no further treatment. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusion: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">This study concluded that pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse is safe in low resource settings. Therefore, it is justifiable to offer pessaries in the initial management of uterovaginal prolapse to all patients who opt for conservative management and those awaiting surgery.</span></span>展开更多
文摘<strong>Background:</strong><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) impacts the sufferers</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">’</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> quality of life negatively. There is a preference for a mechanical device in certain conditions though the definitive management of POP is surgical</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">.</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> <b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Objectives: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">We conducted the study to evaluate the outcome of management of POP using mechanical devices.</span></span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Methods: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">It was a prospective study. It took place in the gynecology unit of the Bowen University Teaching Hospital Ogbomoso between May 2014 and April 2019. We followed up </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">with </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">eligible patients who opted for pessary use for a median duration of 18 months (Range 12</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">-</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">84</span><span style="font-family:;" "=""> </span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">months). We excluded those who refuse to participate in the study. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Results: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Of the</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">127 patients</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">with</span><b> </b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">symptomatic POP, seventy-five (59.1%) opted for the use of mechanical devices, and 70 successfully retained them four weeks after insertion. We lost Six (9.2%) patients to follow up. Of the 64 women included in the analysis, 16 (25%) discontinued use at some point after four weeks, whereas 36 (56.3%) used the pessary successfully throughout the follow-up period. Overall, 12.1% of the women experienced minor complications (6.9% pain or discomfort, 3.2% excoriation or bleeding, and 2.0% dis-impaction or constipation). After cessation of pessary use, 12 (25%) of the 48 women chose surgery, and 10 (20.8%) chose no further treatment. </span><b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Conclusion: </span></b><span style="font-family:Verdana;">This study concluded that pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse is safe in low resource settings. Therefore, it is justifiable to offer pessaries in the initial management of uterovaginal prolapse to all patients who opt for conservative management and those awaiting surgery.</span></span>