Treatment of vaginal relaxation syndrome with an Erbium:YAG laser 360° scanning scope via automatic dual mode technique

Treatment of women with vaginal laxity: systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite several treatments that have been used for women reporting vaginal laxity (VL), to our knowledge no systematic review is available on the topic so far.

AIM

In this study, we sought to summarize the best available evidence about the efficacy and safety of interventions for treating VL, whether conservative or surgical.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for reports of clinical trials published from database inception to September 2022. Studies selected for inclusion were in the English language and were performed to investigate any type of treatment for VL, with or without a comparator, whether nonrandomized studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Case reports and studies without a clear definition of VL were excluded.

OUTCOMES

The outcomes were interventions (laser, radiofrequency, surgery, and topical treatment), adverse effects, sexual function, pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength, and improvement of VL by the VL questionnaire (VLQ).

RESULTS

From 816 records, 38 studies remained in the final analysis. Laser and radiofrequency (RF) were the energy-based treatment devices most frequently studied. Pooled data from eight observational studies have shown improved sexual function assessed by a Female Sexual Function Index score mean difference (MD) of 6.51 (95% CI, 5.61-7.42; i2 = 85%, P < .01) before and after intervention, whether by RF (MD, 6.00; 95% CI, 4.26-7.73; i2 = 80%; P < .001) or laser (MD, 6.83; 95% CI, 5.01-8.65; i2 = 92%; P < .01). However, this finding was not shown when only 3 RCTs were included, even when separated by type of intervention (RF or laser). When RF treatment was compared to sham controls, VLQ scores did not improve (MD, 1.01; 95% CI, -0.38 to 2.40; i2 = 94%; P < .001). Patient PFM strength improved after interventions were performed (MD, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-7.42; i2 = 77%; P < .001). The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions) tool classified all non-RCTs at serious risk of bias, except for 1 study, and the risk of bias-1 analysis found a low and unclear risk of bias for all RCTs. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of the evidence was moderate for sexual function and the VLQ questionnaire and low for PFM strength.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Sexual function in women with VL who underwent RF and laser treatment improved in observational studies but not in RCTs. Improvement in PFM strength was observed in women with VL after the intervention.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Crucial issues were raised for the understanding of VL, such as lack of standardization of the definition and for the development of future prospective studies. A limitation of the study was that the heterogeneity of the interventions and different follow-up periods did not make it possible to pool all available data.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaginal tightening did not improve sensation in women with VL after intervention, whereas RF and laser improved sexual function in women with VL according to data from observational studies, but not from RCTs. PFM strength was improved after intervention in women with VL.

Current Perspectives in Vaginal Laxity Measurement: A Scoping Review

This scoping review aimed to identify and categorize the available measurement options for vaginal laxity (VL), their indications of use, and whether these measurements can sufficiently provide objective clinical judgment for cases indicated for vaginal rejuvenation with many treatment options nowadays. Systematic searches were conducted on five electronic databases, manually searching articles' bibliographies and predetermined key journals with no date or study design limitations. We included all studies involving VL in their inclusion criteria, treatment indications, and outcome parameters. We used the Arksey and O'Malley frameworks as the guideline in writing this scoping review. Of the 9,464 articles identified, 66 articles and 11,258 subjects were included in the final analysis. The majority of studies were conducted in obstetrics and gynecology (73%), followed by plastic surgery (10%), medical rehabilitation (4.5%), dermatology (4.5%), and others (8%). Most studies originated from the North American region (30%). The following measurement tools were used: (1) interviews, (2) questionnaires, (3) physical/digital examinations, (4) perineometers, and (5) others. Our results suggested that subjective perception of laxity confirmed by directed interview or questionnaire is sufficient to confirm VL. Additional evaluation of pelvic floor muscle through digital examination or perineometer or other preferred tools and evaluation of sexual function through validated questionnaire (Female Sexual Function Index, Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised, etc.) should follow to ensure holistic care to patients. Future research on the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of commonly used measurements and the correlation in between subjective and objective measurements should be initiated before their clinical applications.

Joint Report on Terminology for Cosmetic Gynecology

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The current terminology used to describe cosmetic gynecologic procedures includes many nondescriptive, trademarked, or informal names, which contributes to substantial ambiguity about their aims and specific techniques. The development of clear, uniform descriptive terminology for cosmetic gynecology is needed for patients, researchers, and practitioners across multiple specialties.

METHODS

This document was developed from a collaboration of selected members from the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Wide-ranging literature reviews were performed to identify the breadth of currently used terms and tools for measuring efficacy and safety. After extensive internal review the adoption of each definition was ratified by group consensus.

RESULTS

A terminology report for elective cosmetic gynecology procedures, anatomical classification, outcome metrics, and reporting of complications has been developed. This document seeks to provide clear descriptive guidance for patients, researchers, and practitioners across multiple specialties. This document will be subject to internal review by IUGA and AUGS to incorporate and adopt evidence-based changes in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

A consensus-based document establishing clear terminology for cosmetic gynecology procedures has been created. Use of these terms should be encouraged to provide clarity to patients seeking these procedures and to facilitate future research to establish the safety and efficacy of these procedures.

Joint Report on Terminology for Cosmetic Gynecology

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The current terminology used to describe cosmetic gynecologic procedures includes many nondescriptive, trademarked, or informal names, which contributes to substantial ambiguity about their aims and specific techniques. The development of clear, uniform descriptive terminology for cosmetic gynecology is needed for patients, researchers, and practitioners across multiple specialties.

METHODS

This document was developed from a collaboration of selected members from the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Wide-ranging literature reviews were performed to identify the breadth of currently used terms and tools for measuring efficacy and safety. After extensive internal review the adoption of each definition was ratified by group consensus.

RESULTS

A terminology report for elective cosmetic gynecology procedures, anatomical classification, outcome metrics, and reporting of complications has been developed. This document seeks to provide clear descriptive guidance for patients, researchers, and practitioners across multiple specialties. This document will be subject to internal review by IUGA and AUGS to incorporate and adopt evidence-based changes in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

A consensus-based document establishing clear terminology for cosmetic gynecology procedures has been created. Use of these terms should be encouraged to provide clarity to patients seeking these procedures and to facilitate future research to establish the safety and efficacy of these procedures.