ReviewBJUI compass2022
Rare complications of pessary use: A systematic review of case reports.
Review in BJUI compass, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-care of vaginal pessary for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of Delayed Pessary Maintenance Appointments on Patient's Symptoms and Clinical Findings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Cervical Canal Impaction of the Gellhorn Pessary Stem: A Rare Complication of Vaginal Pessary Use.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Vaginal Mesh Exposure Following Pessary Use After Transvaginal Mesh Surgery: A Case Report.IJU case reports · 2026Article
- Personalized Management of Hydroxyquinoline Hypersensitivity in Pessary Care: A Case-Based Approach to Tailored Treatment.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- Article
- Updates in Pessary Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Vaginal pessary: a culprit for intraperitoneal bladder perforation.BMJ case reports · 2024Article
- A rare case report - Urosepsis as a result of a neglected and forgotten pessary for 10 years.Urology case reports · 2023Article
- Retained vaginal pessary due to tissue bridge: a strategy for removal.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Rare complications of pessary use: A systematic review of case reports.BJUI compass · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pessaries are desirable for its overall safety profiles. Serious complications have been reported; however, there is little summative evidence. This systematic review aimed to consolidate all reported serious outcomes from pessaries usage to better identify and counsel patients who might be at higher risk of developing these adverse events. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review using search terms such as 'prolapse', 'stress urinary incontinence' and 'pessary or pessaries or pessarium' on PubMed, Embase and CINAHL. A total of 36 articles were identified. Patient-level data were extracted from case reports to further describe complications on an individual level. Results: Overall median age of the patients was 82 years (range 62-98). The most frequent complications were vesicovaginal fistula (25%, Conclusion: Pessaries are a reasonable and durable treatment for POP with exceedingly rare reports of severe adverse complications. The ideal candidate for pessary should have a good self-care index. Studies to determine causative factors of the more serious adverse events are needed; however, this may be difficult given the long follow-up that is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.