Medicina (Mar 2024)

Quality of Life after Treatment for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Real-World Study: Recommendations, Vaginal Pessary, and Surgery

  • Dominyka Mančinskienė,
  • Miglė Mikėnaitė,
  • Mark Barakat,
  • Justina Kačerauskienė,
  • Dalia Regina Railaitė,
  • Laima Maleckienė,
  • Arnoldas Bartusevičius,
  • Eglė Bartusevičienė

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60040547
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 60, no. 4
p. 547

Abstract

Read online

Background and Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, with its prevalence increasing with age, and can significantly impact the quality of life (QOL) of many individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the overall improvement, quality of life, and continuation of primary treatment for POP over a 24-month period in a real-world setting. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, observational, follow-up study of women with symptomatic POP who, as a primary treatment, opted for recommendations (lifestyle changes and pelvic floor muscle training), pessary therapy, or surgery. The primary outcome measure was a subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcome measures were the continuation rate of the primary treatment method, reason for discontinuation, and the quality of life evaluated with the P-QoL questionnaire. Results: We included 137 women, with 45 women (32.8%) in the recommendations group, 39 (28.5%) in the pessary group, and 53 women (38.7%) in the surgery group. After 24 months, surgery, in comparison with pessary treatment and recommendations, resulted in significantly more women reporting a subjective improvement: 89.6%, 66.7%, and 22.9% (p Conclusions: The chance of significant improvement was higher following surgery. However, after 24 months, both vaginal pessaries and surgery showed an important quality-of life improvement and can be proposed as primary treatment methods for pelvic organ prolapse.

Keywords