Priority 11 from the Pessary use for Prolapse PSP
|UNCERTAINTY: What level of prolapse will improve with the use of a pessary? (JLA PSP Priority 11)
|JLA question ID
|There is a lack of clarity about whether a pessary can be used as effectively for a mild or a severe prolapse although women with a severe prolapse are less likely to be offered a trial of a pessary.
|Health Research Classification System category
|Renal and urogenital
|Extra information provided by this PSP
|Original uncertainty examples
When can I suggest a pessary? ~ What type and extent of pop (pelvic organ prlapse) benefits with pessary? ~ What degree of POP is a pessary most effective for? ~ The manufacturer’s recommendations that ring pessaries are only suitable for women with stages I and II prolapse or that Gellhorn or other space occupying pessaries should be used in women with stages III and IV prolapse. ~ Which treatment is better for stage 2 cystocele?
|2 x women, 3 x healthcare professionals, 2 x literature, 1 x other
|PSP unique ID
|Pessary use for Prolapse
|Total number of uncertainties identified by this PSP.
|66 (To see a full list of all uncertainties identified, please see the detailed spreadsheet held on the JLA website)
|Date of priority setting workshop
|8 September 2017