4.5 Review

Physical methods for the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13561

关键词

atrophy; erbium; female urogenital diseases; laser therapy; menopause; radiofrequency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that laser and radiofrequency therapy may be promising and safe therapeutic options for genitourinary syndrome of menopause and urinary incontinence. However, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the strength of the evidence before generalizing the findings.
Background Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) negatively affects sexual function and quality of life. Techniques like laser and radiofrequency are being used to manage GSM, particularly in women with contraindications for hormone therapy. Objectives To verify whether the physical methods of laser and radiofrequency can be recommended as safe and effective options for the treatment of GSM/urinary urgency or incontinence in pre- and postmenopausal women. Search strategy Databases were comprehensively searched using combinations of the following keywords in any language: postmenopause; genitourinary syndrome of menopause; vaginal atrophy; radiofrequency; and laser. Selection criteria Full articles of case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, randomized clinical trials, and quasi-randomized or controlled clinical trials were included. Data collection and analysis All authors independently evaluated the design of the studies for quality of reporting, risk of bias, and quality of evidence. Main results Of the included 49 studies, 37 were on the CO2 laser, 10 on the Erbium laser, and two on radiofrequency. Conclusions Laser and radiofrequency therapy could be promising and safe therapeutic options for GSM/urinary incontinence. However, the study findings cannot be generalized until new randomized clinical trials are performed that confirm the strength of the evidence. This review has been registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020141913.

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

4.5
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