RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is a common condition that can be treated conservatively and/or surgically. Given the risks of surgery, developing effective nonsurgical treatment options would be beneficial. Some studies have suggested that laser therapy may improve or cure stress urinary incontinence. However, there is a lack of sham-controlled randomized controlled trials to judge treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of CO2 vaginal laser vs sham therapy for treating stress urinary incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter, participant-blinded, sham-controlled, parallel group (1:1) superiority randomized controlled trial performed in outpatient clinics in 2 hospitals. We included women aged 18 to 80 years with objective and subjective stress urinary incontinence. Participants had undertaken or declined supervised pelvic floor muscle training. Intervention was performed using a CO2 fractionated vaginal laser. Participants underwent 3 treatments, 4 weeks apart, with increasing energy and density settings. Sham treatment was performed using an identical technique with a deactivated pedal. The primary outcome was the subjective stress urinary incontinence rate (proportion with leak with cough, sneeze, or laughter) at 3 months after completion of treatment. Secondary outcomes included objective stress urinary incontinence, change in the disease-specific patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects. Categorical outcomes were compared using the chi square test and continuous outcomes using analysis of covariance, adjusting for the baseline score. RESULTS: There were 52 participants who received laser and 49 who received sham treatment. One participant in each group withdrew from the study before the endpoint, and 2 participants in the laser group did not participate in the follow-up visits. Participant mean age was 53 (34-79) years. Mean body mass index was 26.1 (18.1-49.6); 90% were vaginally parous. At 3 months, there was no difference between the sham and active treatment arm in subjective stress urinary incontinence (46 [96%] vs 48 [98%]; relative risk, 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.05]; P=.55) or in objective stress urinary incontinence (37 [80%] vs 33 [80%]; relative risk, 0.99 [95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.23]; P=.995). Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life were also comparable between the groups. Vaginal bleeding occurred in 3 participants after laser and 1 participant after sham treatment. Pain during treatment did not differ between laser and sham treatment. CONCLUSION: We were unable to show an improvement in stress urinary incontinence after CO2 vaginal laser therapy compared with sham treatment.