Efficacy of Fractional Laser on Steroid Receptors in GSM Patients.

estrogen genitourinary syndrome of menopause hormone therapy laser therapy menopause

Journal

Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2306-5354
Titre abrégé: Bioengineering (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101676056

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 03 08 2023
revised: 08 09 2023
accepted: 09 09 2023
medline: 28 9 2023
pubmed: 28 9 2023
entrez: 28 9 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To compare the efficacy of CO Twenty-five menopausal women were randomized to receive either laser or estrogen treatment. Vaginal biopsies before and after treatment were compared to assess the amount and distribution of estrogen and progesterone receptors. Estrogen receptor levels were statistically similar between groups before and after treatment. Although there was no change over time in the estrogen group, an increase in receptor levels was confirmed in the laser group. Changes in estrogen receptor levels showed no association with treatment. Progesterone receptor levels were statistically similar between groups throughout treatment. There was no change over time in both groups. These changes displayed no association with the type of treatment. There was no significant correlation between epithelium thickness and estrogen or progesterone receptor levels. Estrogen and progesterone receptor levels increased and were maintained, respectively, in the vaginal epithelium in both groups. There was no significant relationship between epithelium thickness and receptor density. Laser therapy had similar outcomes to the gold standard without involving the disadvantages of hormone therapy.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
To compare the efficacy of CO
METHODS METHODS
Twenty-five menopausal women were randomized to receive either laser or estrogen treatment. Vaginal biopsies before and after treatment were compared to assess the amount and distribution of estrogen and progesterone receptors.
RESULTS RESULTS
Estrogen receptor levels were statistically similar between groups before and after treatment. Although there was no change over time in the estrogen group, an increase in receptor levels was confirmed in the laser group. Changes in estrogen receptor levels showed no association with treatment. Progesterone receptor levels were statistically similar between groups throughout treatment. There was no change over time in both groups. These changes displayed no association with the type of treatment. There was no significant correlation between epithelium thickness and estrogen or progesterone receptor levels.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Estrogen and progesterone receptor levels increased and were maintained, respectively, in the vaginal epithelium in both groups. There was no significant relationship between epithelium thickness and receptor density. Laser therapy had similar outcomes to the gold standard without involving the disadvantages of hormone therapy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37760189
pii: bioengineering10091087
doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10091087
pmc: PMC10525165
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 Oct;277:84-89
pubmed: 36037664
Menopause. 2017 Jul;24(7):728-753
pubmed: 28650869
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Aug;158(2):241-251
pubmed: 34625949
Climacteric. 2016 Apr;19(2):188-97
pubmed: 26581580
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018 Dec;45(4):585-597
pubmed: 30401544
Br J Dermatol. 2008 Feb;158(2):319-28
pubmed: 18076706
Menopause. 2015 Aug;22(8):845-9
pubmed: 25608269
Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;124(6):1147-1156
pubmed: 25415166
Menopause. 2014 Oct;21(10):1063-8
pubmed: 25160739
Maturitas. 2017 Sep;103:78-88
pubmed: 28778337
Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Jan;30(1):429-36
pubmed: 25410301
Climacteric. 2014 Aug;17(4):363-9
pubmed: 24605832
JAMA. 2019 Sep 26;:
pubmed: 31556910
Photomed Laser Surg. 2017 Mar;35(3):171-175
pubmed: 28056209
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 31;(8):CD001500
pubmed: 27577677
J Sex Med. 2022 May;19(5):761-770
pubmed: 35370104
Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Jan 1;39(1):83-93
pubmed: 29726916
Menopause. 2018 Jan;25(1):21-28
pubmed: 28763401
Maturitas. 2016 Sep;91:74-80
pubmed: 27451324
Climacteric. 2016 Oct;19(5):512-8
pubmed: 27558459
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018 Apr;14(4):199-215
pubmed: 29393299
Menopause. 2019 Apr;26(4):431-453
pubmed: 30363010

Auteurs

Stella Catunda Pinho (SC)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Thais Heinke (T)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Paula Fernanda Santos Pallone Dutra (PFSP)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Andreia Carmo (A)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Camilla Salmeron (C)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Luciana Karoleski (L)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Gustavo Focchi (G)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Neila Maria Góis Speck (NMG)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.

Beatrice Marina Pennati (BM)

Clinical Research and Practice Department, El.En. Group, 50041 Calenzano, Italy.

Ivaldo Silva (I)

Department of Gynecology, Paulista Medical School, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP/EPM, Sao Paulo 04021-001, Brazil.
Department of Education, ICT and Learning, Østfold University College, 1757 Halden, Norway.

Classifications MeSH