Update on lasers in urology 2015

Vaginal laser treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: does the evidence support the FDA safety communication?

IMPORTANCE

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a chronic, progressive condition frequently manifesting as vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse. Survey data indicate this is a highly prevalent, likely underreported, condition that profoundly affects quality of life for millions of women. Vaginal lasers demonstrate promise as an effective, nonhormone therapeutic alternative for GSM; however, the risks associated with them may have been overstated.

OBJECTIVE

Despite reports of improved sexual and vaginal comfort without serious safety concerns, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a 2018 safety communication warning against it. We conducted a systematic literature review and surveyed both the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) and Bloomberg Law Databases to evaluate risks associated with laser treatment for GSM.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic literature review identified articles published before September 2019. The MAUDE database was searched by name from 2009 to 2019 for safety claims for 24 vaginal laser devices. The Bloomberg Law database was searched for product liability claims against any vaginal laser device manufacturer before July 2019.

FINDINGS

Literature review revealed 3 publications detailing 29 presumptive laser-associated complications, only 5 of which (17.2%) reported worsening symptoms after treatment. The MAUDE database contained 120 complaints; only 30 (25%) detailed potential adverse patient events, most frequently pain (n = 12) and burning (n = 10). The Bloomberg law database contained no claims asserting harm from device use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Lacking strong evidence indicating significant patient risk for vaginal laser treatment of GSM, the FDA safety communication appears unsubstantiated and implies gender bias. Identified complications suggest most reported "adverse events" represent lack of treatment effect. The well-documented benefits and low risk of adverse event suggest laser therapy for GSM is reasonable with appropriate pretreatment counseling. Additional randomized, well-controlled clinical trials are needed to further elucidate both the safety and efficacy of this nonhormone therapy.

The Clinical Role of LASER for Vulvar and Vaginal Treatments in Gynecology and Female Urology: An ICS/ISSVD Best Practice Consensus Document

In this best practice document, we propose recommendations for the use of LASER for gynecologic and urologic conditions such as vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence, vulvodynia, and lichen sclerosus based on a thorough literature review. Most of the available studies are limited by their design; for example, they lack a control group, patients are not randomized, follow-up is short term, series are small, LASER is not compared with standard treatments, and most studies are industry sponsored. Because of these limitations, the level of evidence for the use of LASER in the treatment of these conditions remains low and does not allow for definitive recommendations for its use in routine clinical practice. Histological evidence is commonly reported as proof of tissue regeneration after LASER treatment. However, the histological changes noted can also be consistent with reparative changes after a thermal injury rather than necessarily representing regeneration or restoration of function. The use of LASER in women with vulvodynia or lichen sclerosus should not be recommended in routine clinical practice. There is no biological plausibility or safety data on its use on this population of women. The available clinical studies do not present convincing data regarding the efficacy of LASER for the treatment of vaginal atrophy or urinary incontinence. Also, although short-term complications seem to be uncommon, data concerning long-term outcomes are lacking. Therefore, at this point, LASER is not recommended for routine treatment of the aforementioned conditions unless part of well-designed clinical trials or with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit.

The clinical role of LASER for vulvar and vaginal treatments in gynecology and female urology: An ICS/ISSVD best practice consensus document

BACKGROUND

The clinical role of LASER for vulvar and vaginal treatments in gynecology and female urology is controversial.

AIMS

In this best practice document, we propose recommendations for the use of LASER for gynecologic and urologic conditions such as vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence, vulvodynia, and lichen sclerosus based on a thorough literature review.

MATERIALS & METHODS

This project was developed between January and September 2018. The development of this document followed the ICS White Paper Standard Operating Procedures.

RESULTS

Most of the available studies are limited by their design; for example they lack a control group, patients are not randomized, follow up is short term, series are small, LASER is not compared with standard treatments, and studies are industry sponsored. Due to these limitations, the level of evidence for the use of LASER in the treatment of these conditions remains low and does not allow for definitive recommendations for its use in routine clinical practice. Histological evidence is commonly reported as proof of tissue regeneration following LASER treatment. However, the histological changes noted can also be consistent with reparative changes after a thermal injury rather than necessarily representing regeneration or restoration of function. The use of LASER in women with vulvodynia or lichen sclerosus should not be recommended in routine clinical practice. There is no biological plausibility or safety data on its use on this population of women.

DISCUSSION

The available clinical studies do not present convincing data regarding the efficacy of LASER for the treatment of vaginal atrophy or urinary incontinence. Also, while short-term complications seem to be uncommon, data concerning long-term outcomes are lacking.

CONCLUSION

At this point, LASER is not recommended for routine treatment of the aforementioned conditions unless part of well-designed clinical trials or with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit.