ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Vaginal Augmentation: Efficacy and Safety.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaginal hyaluronic acid (HA) filler is a minimally invasive option primarily aimed at functional improvement (sexual function and pelvic muscle performance), with aesthetic effects considered secondary. The procedure aims to address changes in the female genitalia that may occur due to aging, childbirth, or other factors. This review aims to provide a detailed overview of the techniques involved, anatomical considerations, safety profiles, and clinical outcomes associated with vaginal filler injections.
methodsIn this study, 42 women (24 premenopausal, 18 postmenopausal) underwent posterior vaginal wall augmentation using cross-linked hyaluronic acid, volume ranging from 3-5 cc (e.p.t.q.® Lidocaine S 300 and e.p.t.q.® eve X, JETEMA Co., Ltd. Korea), which has an expected reabsorption period of approximately 9-12 months. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Female sexual function was evaluated using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), which measures six domains: desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain. Pelvic floor muscle strength and function were objectively assessed using the Peritron perineometer, which records resting pressure, peak pressure, average pressure, and contraction duration.
resultsAll 42 participants completed the 12 month follow-up, with improvements in every FSFI domain and Peritron parameter observed at 6 months and maintained through 12 months. Participant satisfaction increased from 71% at 6 months to 81% at 12 months, and no participants reported dissatisfaction at any time point.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of vaginal filler treatment to positively impact female sexual well-being. Both subjective reports of satisfaction and objective physiological measures indicate improvements following the procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41526741What 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.