ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Primary Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women Aged Over 80 Years: Pessary Versus Surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study compared functional outcomes of pessary and surgery as the primary treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in elderly women.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 148 women aged 80 and above with symptomatic POP were treated at our institute between November 2013 and May 2023 with either surgery (n = 23) or pessary (n = 125). Treatment was based on patient preference. A long-term follow-up of over 1 year was conducted. The primary outcome was subjective patient-reported improvement measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale. Secondary outcomes included symptom remission and adverse events. The ability of self-management of pessary and the discontinuation of pessary use were also analyzed.
resultsOne hundred thirty-two patients completed at least 1 year of follow-up (median 696 days); 94.7% women (18/19) in the surgery group and 87.6% women (99/113) in the pessary group reported subjective improvement (risk difference -7.1% [2-sided 95% CI, -16.3 to 12.9]; p value, .70), showing no statistical difference. Among pessary users, 68.3% of ring pessary users and 50.0% of Gellhorn pessary users were able to independently manage the pessary (p = .21). Reasons for discontinued pessary use were mainly perceived inconvenience, pain or discomfort, and decreased daily activity or negligible POP symptoms. Four patients switched from pessary to surgery.
conclusionsPessary is an effective and safe primary treatment for symptomatic POP in elderly women and can be managed independently in the majority of elderly users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.