ArticleGerms2025
Post-procedural infection risk following laser vaginal rejuvenation: clinical experience from a single center.
Article in Germs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) and vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) significantly impact women's quality of life, leading to symptoms such as vaginal dryness, irritation, dyspareunia, and urinary incontinence. While traditional treatments include hormonal therapy and surgical interventions, these approaches may not be suitable for all patients. Laser vaginal rejuvenation has emerged as a promising, minimally invasive alternative that enhances vaginal tissue health with minimal downtime. Methods: This retrospective study analyzes data from 53 patients who underwent internal, external, or combined laser vaginal rejuvenation. Patient demographics, medical and gynecological history, treatment indications, procedural details, and post-treatment outcomes were assessed. Results: The most common reasons for seeking treatment included vaginal laxity (69.8%), urinary incontinence (47.2%), and vaginal discomfort (15.1%). The majority (90.6%) opted for combined internal and external treatment, with most undergoing three sessions. Post-procedure symptoms were minimal, limited to transient discomfort and minor, self-limiting bleeding in three patients. No patients developed wound infections. Conclusions: Findings suggest laser vaginal rejuvenation is a well-tolerated procedure, with high adherence and patient satisfaction rates. While our current study is limited by its descriptive nature and its single-center design, results align with existing literature, supporting the procedure's safety and efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.