Currently there is a wide variation in surgical techniques performed for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In 2009 Maher et al. performed a Cochrane review on the many different surgical procedures for POP and concluded that there are insufficient data from randomised controlled trials to guide clinical practice optimally. (1) Numerous studies have shown that use of vaginal pessaries improves urinary, bowel, sexual and general quality of life symptoms associated with POP. (2-6) However, in recent years their use to treat symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence has declined due to advances in gynaecological surgery. Currently it is widely accepted that the most common indications for vaginal pessaries as a treatment option for POP include co-morbid medical conditions, patients who still want to have children, to provide interim relief before surgery, and non-surgical treatment for those patients who prefer it. (7) There are few data on the use of vaginal pessaries for POP in clinical practice. Recent studies have shown that pessaries are used by 98% of members of the American Urogynecologic Society (77% use them as first-line therapy for POP), 88% of Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (8,9) and 86.7% of consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists in the UK. (10) The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of pessaries by South African gynaecologists in their clinical practice. Methods
