Objective: This subanalysis of the VIVEVE I trial aimed to evaluate the impact of cryogen-cooled monopolar radiofrequency (CMRF) therapy, for the treatment of vaginal laxity, on the domains of sexual function included in the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Materials and Methods: The VIVEVE I clinical trial was prospective, randomized, single-blind, and Sham-controlled. Nine clinical study centers in Canada, Italy, Spain, and Japan were included. This subanalysis included premenopausal women with self-reported vaginal laxity who had ≥1 term vaginal delivery and a baseline FSFI total score ≤26.5, indicating sexual dysfunction. Enrolled subjects were randomized (2:1) to receive CMRF therapy [Active (90 J/cm 2 ) vs. Sham (≤1 J/cm 2 )] delivered to the vaginal tissue. Independent analyses were conducted for each FSFI domain to evaluate both the mean change, as well as the clinically important change for Active- versus Sham-treated subjects at 6 months post-intervention. Results: Subjects randomized to Active treatment ( n = 73) had greater improvement than Sham subjects ( n = 35) on all FSFI domains of sexual function at 6 months postintervention. The analysis of covariance change from baseline analyses showed statistically significant improvements, in favor of Active treatment, for sexual arousal ( p = 0.004), lubrication ( p = 0.04), and orgasm ( p = 0.007). In addition, Active treatment was associated with clinically important and statistically significant improvements in sexual desire [Odds ratio (OR) = 3.01 (1.11–8.17)], arousal [OR = 2.73 (1.06–7.04)], and orgasm [OR = 2.58 (1.08–6.18)]. Conclusions: This subanalysis showed CMRF therapy is associated with statistically significant and clinically important improvements in sexual function in women with vaginal laxity. These findings provide the first randomized, placebo-controlled energy-based device evidence for functional improvements associated with a nonsurgical modality for a highly prevalent and undertreated condition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krychman et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: