A 28 Day Clinical Assessment of a Lactic Acid-containing Antimicrobial Intimate Gel Wash Formulation on Skin Tolerance and Impact on the Vulvar Microbiome.

While intimate feminine hygiene products are widely used as part of daily cleansing routines, little is known about how these products impact the vulvovaginal area and its microbiome stability. This 4 week clinical study assessed tolerance of a novel gel wash containing lactic acid (pH 4.2) for external daily use when used on the external genital area and its effects on skin moisturization, vulvar skin pH, and the vulvar microbiome. After a 7 day pre-study conditioning period, 36 healthy females in three balanced age groups (18-29, 30-44, and 45-55 years) used the gel wash to cleanse their external genital area (mons pubis and vulva) and entire body at least once per day for 28 days. Skin tolerance of the gel wash was assessed by the gynecologist. Effects of the gel wash on vulvar skin microbiota were studied by performing bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) microbial richness and diversity analysis. Based on gynecologic assessment after 28 days of use, the gel wash showed acceptable tolerance, with no signs of increased dryness, redness, edema, itching, stinging, or burning. Use of the gel wash was associated with a significant increase in both short-term (single application) and longer-term (daily use for 28 days) skin moisturization. There was no significant change in vulvar skin pH over time with daily product use, and the gel wash did not significantly affect the natural vulvar microbiome species richness or diversity for bacteria or fungi. Results showed that this gel wash is a mild, moisturizing cleanser that maintains the natural pH and microbial diversity of vulvar skin. To our knowledge, this was the first study to assess the effect of an antimicrobial feminine gel wash on the natural pH and vulvar microbiome habitat of the skin using bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal ITS genetic sequencing techniques.

Utilization of preoperative urodynamic investigations by gynecologists who frequently operate for female urinary incontinence.

Our objective was to determine the availability and utilization of urodynamic investigations by gynecologists in the preoperative evaluation of women with urinary incontinence. Gynecologists in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were asked what urodynamic investigations were required for four clinical scenarios. Analysis was restricted to frequent operators. Urodynamic investigations were available to 70% of frequent operators. For uncomplicated stress incontinence, cystometry was utilized by 72% of subspecialists and 44% of generalists ( P<0.001) who had access to urodynamic investigations. For stress incontinence and straining to void, uroflowmetry was utilized by 73% of subspecialists and 46% of generalists ( P<0.001) who had access to urodynamic investigations. We concluded that many gynecologists who frequently operate for female urinary incontinence do not have access to urodynamic investigations or do not utilize urodynamic investigations, or utilize investigations in a way that may be inadequate for the clinical problem. There are differences in utilization between subspecialists and generalists that are not explained by access. These observations could be explained by poor understanding or a lack of belief in the value of urodynamic investigations.