Energy-based interventions for genitourinary syndrome of menopause: a systematic review of randomized controlled...

Hormone treatments for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) symptoms have limitations. There is interest in nonhormone therapies, including energy-based interventions. Benefits and harms of energy-based interventions are not currently well known.

The aim of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of energy-based therapies (eg, CO 2 laser, Er:YAG laser, and radiofrequency) for GSM. Outcomes of interest are the eight "Core Outcomes in Menopause" and include the following: dyspareunia, vulvovaginal dryness, vulvovaginal discomfort/irritation, dysuria, change in most bothersome symptom, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment adverse effects.

Eligible studies included English language randomized controlled trials (RCT) or prospective observational studies of energy-based treatments with ≥8 weeks follow-up in postmenopausal women with ≥1 GSM symptom and studies of any design reporting adverse effects ≥12 months postintervention. Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception to December 11, 2023 using vocabulary and natural language terms, along with free-text words. Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies.

We identified 32 unique studies (16 RCT; 1 quasi-RCT; 15 nonrandomized). Ten RCT and the quasi-RCT were rated low to moderate risk of bias (RoB) and underwent data extraction. Included studies evaluated CO 2 laser (k = 7), Er:YAG laser (k = 3), or radiofrequency and CO 2 laser (k = 1). CO 2 laser compared with sham (k = 4) may result in little to no difference in dysuria, dyspareunia, or quality of life (low certainty of evidence [COE]). CO 2 laser compared with vaginal conjugated estrogens cream (k = 2) may result in little to no difference in dyspareunia, dryness, discomfort/irritation, dysuria, or quality of life (low COE). Treatment effects on all other outcomes and effects of Er:YAG laser or radiofrequency on any outcome are very uncertain (very low COE). Studies noted few adverse events and no serious adverse events.

CO 2 laser resulted in little to no difference in outcomes compared with sham or vaginal estrogen; the evidence is very uncertain on the effect of energy-based interventions versus all other comparators for all other outcomes. Adverse event reporting was limited. There is a need for further evidence assessing energy-based interventions.