<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">445311126</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180317142630.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">170323e20110801xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Manchana</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Tarinee</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Urogynecology Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Ring pessary for all pelvic organ prolapse</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Tarinee Manchana]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Purpose: To evaluate the risk factors of unsuccessful fitting of ring pessary in pelvic organ prolapse (POP), continuation rate, and adverse events. Methods: The ring pessary was offered to 100 symptomatic POP patients. POP was staged according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. A successful fitting was defined as when patients continued pessary use for more than 2weeks. Adverse events were evaluated in patients who had a successful fitting. Results: Most patients (71%) were in POP-Q stage III-IV and 77 patients were fitted at the initial visit. Successful fitting was reported in 62 patients (62%). However, 52 patients (52%) continued to use the pessary at 13months median follow-up. The most common reason for discontinuation was frequent pessary expulsion. Short vaginal length ≤6cm and wide introitus &gt;4 fingerbreadths were the significant risk factors for unsuccessful fitting. New onset of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) developed in 28.2% of patients. One third and 21% of patients had vaginal discharge and vaginal erosion, respectively. Only half of the patients could manage the pessary either by themselves or with their caregivers. Conclusion: The ring pessary fitting can be attempted in all POP cases irrespective of stage. Short vaginal length &lt;6cm and wide introitus &gt;4 fingerbreadths were the risk factors for unsuccessful fitting. It has an acceptable continuation rate and manageable adverse events. The self-care of pessary is an important strategy to minimize adverse events.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Springer-Verlag, 2010</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Adverse events</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Pelvic organ prolapse</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Pessary</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="690" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Risk factors</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">284/2(2011-08-01), 391-395</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0932-0067</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">284:2&lt;391</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2011</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">284</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">404</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1675-y</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">100</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Manchana</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Tarinee</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Urogynecology Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 10330, Bangkok, Thailand</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">284/2(2011-08-01), 391-395</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0932-0067</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">284:2&lt;391</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">2011</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">284</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">404</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Springer special CC-BY-NC licence</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-springer</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
