Vaginal Energy-Based Devices.

This clinical consensus statement on vaginal energy-based devices (EBDs) reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group. The American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group used a modified Delphi process to assess statements that were evaluated for consensus after a structured literature search. A total of 40 statements were assessed and divided into 5 categories: (1) patient criteria, (2) health care provider criteria, (3) efficacy, (4) safety, and (5) treatment considerations. Of the 40 statements that were assessed, 28 reached consensus and the remaining 12 did not. Lack of evidence was among the main reasons that vulvovaginal EBD treatment statements did not reach consensus.

The energy based devices for vaginal "rejuvenation," urinary incontinence, vaginal cosmetic procedures, and other vulvo-vaginal disorders: An international multidisciplinary expert panel opinion.

AIMS: Energy-based devices using radiofrequency and laser technologies have gained popularity as therapies for vaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence, and vaginal prolapse. They have been promoted by cosmetic and aesthetic industries for vaginal "laxity" and vaginal "rejuvenation," both of which are undefined conditions and terms. This article aims to review the current available literature and its quality on this emerging technology. METHODS: An international panel of gynaecologists, urogynaecologists, and urologists undertook a review of the available published literature, identifying articles, guidance, and society statements on the use vaginal energy-based devices. RESULTS: There is currently no formal guidance for the use of vaginal energy based therapies. No randomized controlled trials have been published. No comparative studies to existing treatment has been carried out. Studies suggest that vaginal laser can be used in the treatment of vaginal prolapse or "vaginal laxity" and stress urinary incontinence with no quality evidence supporting the use of the therapy for vaginal atrophy or lichen sclerosis. CONCLUSIONS: This international group propose that whilst there remains a paucity of good quality data describing the safety, benefits, and appropriate use of vaginal radiofrequency or laser treatments in gynaecology and urogynaecology, a consensus best practice document by an established scientific community needs to be developed.

Effect of patient selection on estimate of reproductive success after surgery for rectovaginal endometriosis: literature review.

The effect of rectovaginal endometriosis on fertility is unclear. Several authors foster radical surgery, including colorectal resection, as a fertility-enhancing procedure. However, interpretation of data is difficult, as the baseline fertility status is often undefined and it is not always possible to discriminate between spontaneous conceptions and those resulting from IVF. A systematic literature review was performed with the aim of defining the pregnancy rate specifically in patients who were infertile before surgery and who sought spontaneous pregnancy. A PubMed search was conducted to identify English language studies published between 2005 and 2011 evaluating reproductive performance after surgery for rectovaginal and rectosigmoid endometriosis. According to the results of the 11 selected studies, the mean post-operative conception rate in all women seeking pregnancy independently of preoperative fertility status and IVF performance was 39% (95% CI 35-43%; 223/571), but dropped to 24% (95% CI 20-28%; 123/510) in infertile patients who sought spontaneous conception (odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65%). Patients' selection significantly influences the estimate of the effect of rectovaginal endometriosis excision on infertility. This should be carefully taken into consideration at preoperative counselling. Rectovaginal endometriosis usually is associated with pain symptoms, but the effect of this disease form on fertility is uncertain, as burial of foci beneath rectouterine adhesions with exclusion of the deepest part of the pelvis may limit interference with fertilization processes. Several authors foster radical surgery, including colorectal resection, as a fertility-enhancing procedure. However, interpretation of data is difficult, as the baseline fertility status is often undefined and it is not always possible to discriminate between spontaneous conceptions and those resulting from IVF. A systematic literature review was performed with the aim of defining the pregnancy rate specifically in patients who were infertile before surgery and who sought pregnancy spontaneously. A PubMed search was conducted to identify English language studies published between 2005 and 2011 evaluating reproductive performance after surgery for rectovaginal and rectosigmoid endometriosis. According to the results of the 11 selected studies, the mean post-operative conception rate in all women seeking pregnancy independently of preoperative fertility status and IVF performance was 39% (223/571), but dropped to 24% (123/510) in infertile patients who sought conception spontaneously. The 15% difference is statistically significant. Infertile patients with rectovaginal endometriosis considering surgery, should be carefully informed of the real probability of post-operative conception avoiding generic overestimations.