Injection Treatments for Vulvovaginal Atrophy of Menopause: A Systematic Review.
Moccia F., Pentangelo P., Ceccaroni A., Raffone A., Losco L., Alfano C.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 236, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Aesthetic Plast Surg (2023)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 236
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 37580562
- DOI
- 10.1007/s00266-023-03550-5
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
Background Injection treatments have been proposed as novel treatment options for Vulvovaginal Atrophy of Menopause (VVA) also known as Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM). However, to date data about these treatments are poor. Objective To assess all available injection treatments for VVA. Methods A systematic review was performed by searching five electronic databases for peer-reviewed studies that assessed injection treatments for VVA. Results Eight studies (7 observational and 1 randomized) with 236 women were included. Assessed injection materials were: autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) + hyaluronic acid (HA), not cross-linked HA plus calcium hydroxyapatite (NCLHA + CaHA), micro-fragmented adipose tissue (MFAT), hyaluronan hybrid cooperative complexes (HCC), crosslinked HA, microfat and nanofat grafting + PRP, and PRP alone. Improvement in GSM symptoms after treatment was assessed through Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) for GSM symptoms or patient satisfaction, several validated questionnaires (FSFI, VHI, FSD, SF12, ICIQ UI SF, PGI-I, FSDS-R, VSQ), symptoms severity, changes in vaginal mucosa thickness, flora, pH, and expression on vaginal mucosal biopsies of Procollagen I and III and ki67 immunofluorescence or COL1A1 and COL3A1 mRNA. Injection treatments showing significant improvement in GSM-related symptoms were: (i) HCC in terms of VAS for GSM symptoms and FSFI s
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.