English version not available. Please check the Spanish version.
*Correspondence: Franklin J. Espitia-De la Hoz. Email: espitiafranklin71@gmail.com
Objective: To evaluate sexual function in women with genital prolapse, before and after the use of the pessary.
Method: Cross-sectional study. Thirty-five women (38 and 47 years old) with symptomatic genital prolapse were included. They were diagnosed with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q), treated in three university clinics in the Coffee Region (Colombia), between 2022 and 2024. Sexual function was evaluated with the Index of Female Sexual Function (IFSF), before and 6 months after the use of the pessary. Consecutive sampling was done. Descriptive analysis was performed.
Results: The average age of the participants was 46.85 ± 9.72 years. Fifty-four-point twenty-eight percent presented anterior prolapse, 31.42% posterior and 14.28% apical. Grade 2 prolapse was the most common (48.57%), and grade 4 was the least common (8.57%). The main symptom was the sensation of a vaginal lump (88.57%), followed by urination urgency (71.42%). The prevalence of sexual dysfunction before pessary use was 82.85% and after pessary use was 25.71%. The IFSF score in the total population before and after pessary use was 21.15 ± 7.64 and 27.56 ± 8.39, respectively. Desire disorder predominated (82.85%), followed by orgasm (51.42%).
Conclusions: The use of the pessary has a positive effect on the sexual function of women with genital prolapse, achieving a decrease of 2/3 in the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions. The use of a pessary should be considered as part of the first line of therapy in patients with genital prolapse equal to or greater than grade 2.
English version not available. Please check the Spanish version.
Text only available in Spanish.
Mallorca, 310
08037 Barcelona (España)
Arquímedes, 190 – Colonia Polanco
Delegación Miguel Hidalgo
11560 Ciudad de México (México)
This journal adheres to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics
The editorial process consists of 6 stages:
1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.
2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.
3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.
4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.
5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.
6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.