@article{3120362,
    title = "Can pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women be treated with laser therapy?",
    author = "Athanasiou, S. and Pitsouni, E. and Cardozo, L. and Zacharakis, D. and Petrakis, E. and Loutradis, D. and Grigoriadis, T.",
    journal = "Climacteric",
    year = "2021",
    volume = "24",
    number = "1",
    pages = "101-106",
    publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
    issn = "1369-7137, 1473-0804",
    doi = "10.1080/13697137.2020.1789092",
    keywords = "adult;  anterior vaginal wall prolapse;  Article;  clinical article;  controlled study;  cystocele;  female;  human;  pelvic floor muscle training;  Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification;  pelvis floor;  posterior vaginal wall prolapse;  postmenopause;  priority journal;  quality of life;  randomized controlled trial;  rectocele;  single blind procedure;  watchful waiting;  aged;  low level laser therapy;  middle aged;  pelvic organ prolapse;  questionnaire;  treatment outcome, Aged;  Female;  Humans;  Laser Therapy;  Middle Aged;  Pelvic Organ Prolapse;  Postmenopause;  Surveys and Questionnaires;  Treatment Outcome",
    abstract = "Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the non-ablative photothermal erbium laser (Er:YAG laser) for managing anterior and/or posterior vaginal compartment prolapse. Methods: A randomized, single-blind, 1:1 trial was performed comparing Er:YAG laser treatment to watchful waiting in postmenopausal women with symptomatic cystocele and/or rectocele stage 2 or 3 who opted to undergo surgery due to bothersome prolapse symptoms. Three Er:YAG laser treatments at monthly intervals were applied for the Er:YAG laser group, while there was no treatment for the watchful-waiting group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stage 0 or 1 following laser treatment, while secondary outcomes included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q points), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire short-form, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire short-form, and Patients Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). All outcomes were evaluated at baseline and 4 months post baseline. Results: Thirty women (15 vs. 15) were eligible to be included. No participants (0%) in either group had POP-Q stage 0 or 1 at 4 months. Moreover, no change was present in the secondary outcomes. In the PGI-I, 2/15 (14%) and 0/15 (0%) participants declared much better/very much better in the laser and watchful-waiting group, respectively. Conclusions: The findings of this study do not support use of the intravaginal Er:YAG laser for treatment of the anterior/posterior vaginal wall. Clinical trial identification number: NCT03714607. © 2020 International Menopause Society."
}