4.3 Article

Fractional CO2 laser versus promestriene and lubricant in genitourinary syndrome of menopause: a randomized clinical trial

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001333

关键词

CO2 laser; Dyspareunia; Female sexual function; Genitourinary syndrome; Postmenopausal; Promestriene; Vulvovaginal atrophy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of fractional CO2 laser therapy, promestriene, and vaginal lubricants on genitourinary syndrome treatment and sexual function in postmenopausal women. Methods: We performed a randomized clinical trial including 72 postmenopausal women over the age of 50 years. The women were randomized into three intervention groups to receive one of the following treatments: three sessions of intravaginal fractional CO2 laser therapy; 10 mg of intravaginal promestriene cream 3 times a week; and vaginal lubricant application alone. Vaginal maturation, Vaginal Health Index (VHI) score, and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) were evaluated at baseline and after 14 weeks of therapy. Results: We observed an improvement in the vaginal elasticity, volume, moisture, and pH in the CO2 laser and promestriene groups. The VHI score at 14 weeks was higher in the CO2 laser group (mean score 18.68) than in the promestriene (15.11) and lubricant (10.44) groups (P < 0.001). Regarding vaginal maturation, basal cells were reduced and superficial cells were increased after treatment. This improvement was more significant in the CO2 laser group (P <0.001). The FSFI score only showed improvement in the desire and lubrication domains in the CO2 laser group. There were no differences in total FSFI score among the three treatment groups. There were no adverse effects associated with any of the treatments. Conclusions: The use of fractional CO2 laser therapy to treat genitourinary syndrome resulted in better short-term effects than those of promestriene or lubricant with respect to improving the vaginal health in postmenopausal women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据