Cargando…
Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study
Introduction Vaginal pessary is used as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Some studies have shown that common complaints of its use may include vaginal discomfort and increased vaginal discharge. Scant information is available about the microflora status after using this devi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Thieme-Revinter Publicações Ltda
2017
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309420/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28399595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601437 |
_version_ | 1785066441356083200 |
---|---|
author | Coelho, Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Giraldo, Paulo César Florentino, Juliana Oquendo Castro, Edilson Benedito de Brito, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Juliato, Cássia Raquel Teatin |
author_facet | Coelho, Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Giraldo, Paulo César Florentino, Juliana Oquendo Castro, Edilson Benedito de Brito, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Juliato, Cássia Raquel Teatin |
author_sort | Coelho, Suelene Costa de Albuquerque |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction Vaginal pessary is used as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Some studies have shown that common complaints of its use may include vaginal discomfort and increased vaginal discharge. Scant information is available about the microflora status after using this device. Objective To determine if the usage of vaginal pessary can interfere with the vaginal environment. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed from March of 2014 to July of 2015 including 90 women with POP. The study group was composed of 45 women users of vaginal pessary and 45 nom-users. All enrolled women answered a standardized questionnaire and were subjected to a gynecological exam to collect vaginal samples for microbiological evaluation under optic microscopy. Clinical and microbiological data were compared between study and control groups. Results Vaginal discharge was confirmed in 84% of the study group versus 62.2% in the control group (p < 0.01); itching was reported in 20 and 2.2%, respectively (p < .05); genital ulcers were only found in the pessary group (20%). There was no difference with regard to the type of vaginal flora. Bacterial vaginosis was prevalent in the study group (31.1% study group versus 22.2% control group), (p =.34). Conclusion Women using vaginal pessaries for POP treatment presented more vaginal discharge, itching and genital ulcers than non-users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10309420 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Thieme-Revinter Publicações Ltda |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103094202023-07-27 Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study Coelho, Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Giraldo, Paulo César Florentino, Juliana Oquendo Castro, Edilson Benedito de Brito, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Juliato, Cássia Raquel Teatin Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet Introduction Vaginal pessary is used as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Some studies have shown that common complaints of its use may include vaginal discomfort and increased vaginal discharge. Scant information is available about the microflora status after using this device. Objective To determine if the usage of vaginal pessary can interfere with the vaginal environment. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed from March of 2014 to July of 2015 including 90 women with POP. The study group was composed of 45 women users of vaginal pessary and 45 nom-users. All enrolled women answered a standardized questionnaire and were subjected to a gynecological exam to collect vaginal samples for microbiological evaluation under optic microscopy. Clinical and microbiological data were compared between study and control groups. Results Vaginal discharge was confirmed in 84% of the study group versus 62.2% in the control group (p < 0.01); itching was reported in 20 and 2.2%, respectively (p < .05); genital ulcers were only found in the pessary group (20%). There was no difference with regard to the type of vaginal flora. Bacterial vaginosis was prevalent in the study group (31.1% study group versus 22.2% control group), (p =.34). Conclusion Women using vaginal pessaries for POP treatment presented more vaginal discharge, itching and genital ulcers than non-users. Thieme-Revinter Publicações Ltda 2017-04-11 2017-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10309420/ /pubmed/28399595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601437 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Coelho, Suelene Costa de Albuquerque Giraldo, Paulo César Florentino, Juliana Oquendo Castro, Edilson Benedito de Brito, Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Juliato, Cássia Raquel Teatin Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study |
title | Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study |
title_full | Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study |
title_fullStr | Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study |
title_short | Can the Pessary Use Modify the Vaginal Microbiological Flora? A Cross-sectional Study |
title_sort | can the pessary use modify the vaginal microbiological flora? a cross-sectional study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309420/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28399595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601437 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT coelhosuelenecostadealbuquerque canthepessaryusemodifythevaginalmicrobiologicalfloraacrosssectionalstudy AT giraldopaulocesar canthepessaryusemodifythevaginalmicrobiologicalfloraacrosssectionalstudy AT florentinojulianaoquendo canthepessaryusemodifythevaginalmicrobiologicalfloraacrosssectionalstudy AT castroedilsonbeneditode canthepessaryusemodifythevaginalmicrobiologicalfloraacrosssectionalstudy AT britoluizgustavooliveira canthepessaryusemodifythevaginalmicrobiologicalfloraacrosssectionalstudy AT juliatocassiaraquelteatin canthepessaryusemodifythevaginalmicrobiologicalfloraacrosssectionalstudy |