Importance Consumer-directed female technology (“femtech”) is rapidly expanding into pelvic floor and sexual health, yet clinicians have limited guidance on the safety, efficacy, and appropriate use of these products. Objectives The objective of this review is to summarize currently marketed female technology products relevant to pelvic floor disorders, sexual function, and vaginal health, and to highlight key evidence, limitations, and implications for clinical practice. Study Design This is a narrative review of commercially available technologies for urinary incontinence, sexual dysfunction, and vaginal health. Product categories include external and intravaginal pelvic floor muscle training devices, vibrators, and dilators for sexual function and pain, regenerative medicine interventions such as platelet-rich plasma injections, sexual wellness applications, and direct-to-consumer vaginal microbiome testing platforms. Results Pelvic floor devices and in-office energy therapies offer nonsurgical options for urinary incontinence, but high-quality, independent long-term data are scarce, and costs are often substantial. Sexual wellness devices, including vibrators and dilators, are increasingly recognized as therapeutic tools but are variably supported by clinical research. Early studies of platelet-rich plasma suggest potential benefit for sexual function, yet protocols and outcomes remain heterogeneous. Digital applications and microbiome tests expand access and patient engagement but frequently lack rigorous validation and may raise concerns regarding privacy, equity, and interpretation of results. Conclusions Female technology offers novel opportunities to address pelvic floor and sexual health outside traditional care pathways. Urogynecologists should be familiar with these products, provide balanced counseling on benefits, risks, and cost, and advocate for independent trials to define their role within evidence-based care.
Zhang et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: