| Literature DB >> 30564874 |
Alka A Bhide1, Vik Khullar2, Stephen Swift3, Giuseppe A Digesu2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of lasers in urogynaecology has increased in recent years. Their use has been described in pelvic organ prolapse, urinary incontinence and genito-urinary symptoms of menopause. The aim of this study was to review the published literature on CO2 and erbium:YAG laser use in urogynaecological conditions.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 laser; Erbium laser; Menopause; Prolapse; Urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30564874 PMCID: PMC6491394 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3844-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN: 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894
Summary of included studies
| Author, date, [ref] | Number | Age (mean or median*) | Study design | Laser type | Condition | Evaluation | Assessment parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gambacciani et al., 2015 [ | 19 | 60.9 ± 8.1 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | SUI | Follow-up at 3 months post-treatment | ICIQ-UI SF |
| Ogrinc et al., 2015 [ | 175 | 49.7 ± 10 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | MUI | Follow-up at 12 months | ICIQ-SF, ISI |
| Fistonic et al., 2016 [ | 31 | 46.6 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | SUI | Follow-up at 1, 2 and 6 months | ICIQ-SF UI |
| Fistonic et al., 2016 [ | 73 | 47 (41–54)* | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | SUI | Follow-up at 1, 2–6 months | ICIQ-SF UI |
| Pardo et al., 2016 [ | 42 | 46.5 (30–70)* | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | SUI | Follow-up at 3–6 months | ICIQ-SF |
| Pitsouni et al., 2016 [ | 53 | 57.2 ± 5.4 | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | LUTS | Follow-up 3 months | ICIQ-FLUTS, ICIQ-UI SF, UDI, KHQ |
| Gaspar et al., 2017 [ | 22 | 57.9 | Prospective cohort | Intra-urethral erbium:YAG | Type III stress incontinence | Follow-up at 3 and 6 months | ICIQ-UI SF |
| Gambacciani et al., 2018 [ | 114 | 64.6 ± 4.4 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | SUI | Follow-up at 12, 18 and 24 months | ICIQ-SF |
| Perino et al., 2016 [ | 30 | 56* | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | OAB | Follow-up at 1 month | OAB-Q SF |
| Lin et al., 2017 [ | 30 | 52.6 ± 8.8 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | OAB | Follow-up at 3 and 12 months | OABSS |
| Gaspar et al., 2011 [ | 92 | Not stated | Case control | CO2 laser, PRP and PFE vs. PRP and PFE | GSM | Pre- and post-treatment | Sexual health questionnaire, vaginal biopsies |
| Salvatore et al., 2014 [ | 49 | 59.6 ± 5.8 | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | GSM | Follow-up at 3 months | VHIS, VAS, SF-12 |
| Salvatore et al., 2015 [ | 77 | 60.6 ± 6.2 | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | GSM | Follow-up at 12 months | FSFI, SF-12 |
| Perino et al., 2015 [ | 48 | 56* | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | GSM | Follow-up at 1 month | VHIS, VAS |
| Pitsouni et al., 2016 [ | 53 | 57.2 ± 5.4 | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | GSM | Follow-up at 3 months | Vaginal maturation value VHIS, FSFI |
| Sokol et al., 2016 [ | 30 | 58.6 ± 8.8 | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | GSM | Follow-up at 3 and 12 months | VAS, VHIS, FSFI, SF-12 |
| Behnia-Willison et al., 2017 [ | 102 | 61 | Prospective cohort | CO2 laser | GSM | Follow-up at 2–4 and 12–24 months | Frequency and severity of GSM symptoms, Australian pelvic floor questionnaire |
| Gambacciani et al., 2015 [ | 62 | Laser 60.9 ± 8.1 | Case control | Vaginal erbium:YAG vs. 50 mcg estriol twice weekly for 3 months | GSM | Follow-up at 1, 3 and 6 months | VAS, VHIS |
| Gaspar et al., 2017 [ | 50 | Laser 55 ± 6.7 | Case control | Vaginal erbium:YAG vs. 0.5 mg estriol twice weekly for 3 months | GSM | Follow-up at 12 and 18 months | VAS of GSM symptoms |
| Gaspar et al., 2018 [ | 29 | 66 | Prospective cohort | Intraurethral vaginal erbium:YAG | GSM (urinary symptoms) | Follow-up at 3 and 6 months | ICIQ-SF, 1-h pad test, VAS |
| Gambacciani et al., 2018 [ | 205 | Laser 61.2 ± 7.2 | Case control | Vaginal erbium:YAG vs. 50 mg estriol gel twice weekly for 3 months/non-hormonal therapies | GSM | Follow-up at 12, 18 and 24 months | VAS, VHIS |
| Gaviria et al., 2012 [ | 21 | 37.7 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | VRS | Follow-up at 3 months | Specific VRS questionnaire, POP-Q, PISQ-12 |
| Lee 2014 [ | 30 | 41.7 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | VRS | Follow-up at 2 months | Histology, perineometry, patient satisfaction |
| Bizjak-Ogrinc et al., 2013 [ | 28 | 56.1 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | Prolapse | Follow-up at 2, 4 and 6 months | Clinical examination, post-void residual |
| Bizjak-Ogrinc et al., 2017 [ | 83 | 56.1 | Prospective cohort | Vaginal erbium:YAG | Prolapse | Follow-up at 2, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months | Clinical discomfort VAS, patient satisfaction |
**Study participants included those with LUTS and GSM