| Summary: | Introduction: Vaginal laxity drastically impairs women's quality of life, suggesting there is a need for effective noninvasive treatments. Aim: The aim was to retrospectively assess the effectiveness and safety of a nonablative Er:YAG IntimaLase laser procedure for vaginal laxity in patients treated in our clinical practice during a 2.5-year period. Methods: Laser treatment for vaginal laxity was performed using an intravaginal nonablative Er:YAG laser. Effectiveness was assessed using a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and also by independent evaluation of before and after treatment photographs of the patients' introitus. The safety and tolerability of the procedure was monitored in all patients. Main Outcome Measure: The study showed an improvement of sexual gratification and improvement of vaginal tightness, as assessed by patients. The tightness of the introitus was also improved, as assessed by independent evaluators. Results: As assessed by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, we show that 92.7% of patients experienced improvement of sexual gratification after IntimaLase laser treatment. The results of the visual evaluation of the grade of laxity improvement in the introitus area, when open introitus photos were evaluated, show that 69% (n = 20/29) of patients had an improvement of laxity. Nonablative Er:YAG treatment seems to be an effective and safe treatment for vaginal laxity. As it is a noninvasive procedure, it should be considered before any vaginoplasty surgery. The study included all the patients treated in clinical practice and observed very few adverse effects. The results were comparable with other published data. Because it is a retrospective study, there is a lack of a control group. Conclusion: The results have confirmed that patients suffering from vaginal laxity can be effectively treated using the nonablative Er:YAG IntimaLase procedure without adverse effects.Mitsuyuki M, Štok U, Hreljac I. Treating Vaginal Laxity Using Nonablative Er:YAG Laser: A Retrospective Case Series of Patients From 2.5 Years of Clinical Practice. Sex Med 2020;8:265–273.
|
|---|
