B Aviva Preminger1, Joey S Kurtzman, Erez Dayan. 1. New York, N.Y.; and Reno, Nev. From the Department of Surgery, Columbia University; and Avance Plastic Surgery Institute.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of vulvovaginal restoration devices were called into question in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration statement on July 30, 2018, claiming that women are being harmed by laser and other energy-based devices. The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess existing data, determine gaps in evidence, and propose opportunities for continued investigation pertaining to laser and energy-based vaginal restoration techniques. METHODS: A review of literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted on January 9, 2019, and articles up to this point were considered. For inclusion, studies had to be available or translated in English and relate to clinical medicine, direct patient care, and nonsurgical energy-based vulvovaginal procedures. RESULTS: The authors found five level I studies, 19 level II studies, four level III studies, and 46 level IV studies that used 15 different devices. Various degrees of improvement of symptoms were reported in all studies. Adverse events/side effects were noted in two of the 13 radiofrequency device studies, 15 of the 23 erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet device studies, and 17 of the 37 carbon dioxide device studies. The majority of adverse events were considered mild. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies resulted in mild to no adverse side effects. However, there is a large gap in level I evidence. As a result, the authors emphasize the necessity of supplemental data surrounding this subject and suggest that additional randomized sham-controlled studies be conducted to further investigate vulvovaginal restoration devices in an effort to address women's health issues.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of vulvovaginal restoration devices were called into question in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration statement on July 30, 2018, claiming that women are being harmed by laser and other energy-based devices. The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess existing data, determine gaps in evidence, and propose opportunities for continued investigation pertaining to laser and energy-based vaginal restoration techniques. METHODS: A review of literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted on January 9, 2019, and articles up to this point were considered. For inclusion, studies had to be available or translated in English and relate to clinical medicine, direct patient care, and nonsurgical energy-based vulvovaginal procedures. RESULTS: The authors found five level I studies, 19 level II studies, four level III studies, and 46 level IV studies that used 15 different devices. Various degrees of improvement of symptoms were reported in all studies. Adverse events/side effects were noted in two of the 13 radiofrequency device studies, 15 of the 23 erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet device studies, and 17 of the 37 carbon dioxide device studies. The majority of adverse events were considered mild. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies resulted in mild to no adverse side effects. However, there is a large gap in level I evidence. As a result, the authors emphasize the necessity of supplemental data surrounding this subject and suggest that additional randomized sham-controlled studies be conducted to further investigate vulvovaginal restoration devices in an effort to address women's health issues.
Authors: Márcia Farina Kamilos; Lana Maria Aguiar; Valéria Holmo Batista; Cristiane Lima Roa; Fernando Nalesso Aguiar; José Maria Soares Júnior; Edmund Chada Baracat Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 2.365