Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Internal vaginal pessary is among the leading treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP); however, it has a high adverse event rate. An external pessary was recently developed as an alternative. The study's objective was to compare the efficacy of external and internal pessaries in treating POP in postmenopausal women. METHODS: This parallel randomized (1:1 ratio) open-blind study included 40 symptomatic women with stage 2 or 3 POP. They were randomized into two groups: group 1 (internal pessary) and group 2 (external pessary) (n = 20 in each); and evaluated at the start of and 3 months after the treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the results within and between the groups before and after the 3-month treatment. RESULTS: The groups were homogeneous, except for the variables previous pregnancies (p = 0.030) and POP-Q score of apical prolapse (p = 0.023) whose values were higher in group 2. A significant improvement in quality of life was observed in both groups after 3 months of follow-up; however, internal pessaries were found to be more effective (p < 0.001). In group 1 there were differences between the initial and final POP-Q scores of anterior (0.004) and apical prolapse (p = 0.005). The complication rate associated with internal pessary use was high (p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggested that external pessaries have a similar effect to internal ones for the treatment of POP and improvement of the quality of life of postmenopausal women.