To evaluate the impact of trans-vaginal fractional CO2 laser treatment on symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. Women clinically diagnosed with SUI preferring non-surgical treatment were recruited to the study. Fractional CO2 laser system (MonaLisa T, DEKA) treatments were administered trans-vaginally every 4-6 weeks for a total of three treatments. Response to treatment was assessed at baseline (T1), at 3 months after treatment completion (T2) and at 12-24-month follow-up (T3) using the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ). The primary outcome was changes in reported symptoms of SUI. Secondary outcomes assessed included bladder function, urgency, urge urinary incontinence (UUI), pad usage, impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life (QOL) and degree of bothersome bladder. Fifty-eight women were recruited and received the study treatment protocol. Eighty-two percent of participants reported an improvement in symptoms of SUI at completion of treatment (mild to no SUI) (p = <0.01). Treatment effect waned slightly when assessed at follow-up. Nevertheless, 71% of participants reported ongoing improvement in SUI symptoms at 12-24 months (p < 0.01). All secondary outcome measures were improved after treatment compared to baseline. This study suggests that fractional CO2 laser is a safe, feasible, and beneficial treatment for SUI and may have a role as a minimally-invasive alternative to surgical management.

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome affects 10–15% of women, severely impacting their quality of life. First-line treatments include behavioural and physical therapy, and second-line medical treatments include medications such as vaginal oestrogen, anticholinergic medications, and ß3-adrenergic agonists—with potential adverse side effects including dizziness, constipation, and delirium, particularly affecting elderly populations. Third-line treatments include more invasive measures, including intradetrusor botulinum injections or sacral nerve modulation, with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) being a potential alternative treatment. Aims: The aim of this study was to explore the long-term efficacy of PTNS treatment for OAB in an Australian cohort. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective cohort study. Patients underwent Phase 1 treatment, whereby women received PTNS treatment once per week for 12 weeks. Following Phase 1, women entered Phase 2, whereby they received 12 PTNS treatments over 6 months. Their response to treatment was measured by obtaining data before and after each phase using ICIQ-OAB and the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ). Results: Phase 1 included 166 women, with 51 completing Phase 2. There was a statistically significant reduction in urinary urgency (29.8%), nocturia (29.8%), incontinence (31.0%), and frequency (33.8%) compared to the baseline. Patients who completed Phase 2 also showed a statistically significant reduction in urinary frequency (56.5%). Conclusions: Overall, the results from this study are positive and support that PTNS is a minimally invasive, non-surgical, non-hormonal, and effective treatment for OAB. These results suggest that PTNS may be a second-line treatment for patients with OAB not responding to conservative management or for patients aiming to avoid surgical approaches.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is a non-invasive, autologous treatment with regenerative potential in gynaecology beyond fertility applications. This review evaluates PRP in non-fertility-related gynaecological conditions affecting women’s quality of life (QoL). Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE for studies on PRP in conditions such as vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS), vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), sexual dysfunction (SD), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS). Of 3660 records screened, 43 studies (randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, cohort, and case series) were included. Results: PRP improved symptoms and QoL in several conditions, particularly VLS and SD, and was generally well tolerated with minor adverse effects (e.g., injection-site pain, transient discomfort). Evidence for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was inconclusive. Considerable heterogeneity in preparation protocols and outcome measures limited cross-study comparison. Conclusions: PRP shows promise as a minimally invasive therapy for certain gynaecological conditions. Standardisation of preparation and administration, along with large-scale RCTs, is needed to determine long-term efficacy and safety.

Background: Vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic relapsing dermatosis commonly affecting the anogenital region in postmenopausal women, though it can affect people of any age and sex. The current gold standard treatment is lifelong topical steroid application to reduce symptoms and prevent the progression of disease, causing irreversible architectural change to the vulval tissue. LS is associated with decreased quality of life and increased risk of vulvar neoplasia. Alternatives to current treatments are highly desired by both clinicians and patients. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood product containing high concentrations of platelets and growth factors and is hypothesized to promote wound healing. PRP has been reported to improve symptoms of LS in several case reports and uncontrolled trials. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PRP versus saline injections to improve the clinical signs and symptoms of LS. Methods: This is a protocol for a 12-month, single-center, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of PRP for LS compared to saline. Adult female patients with biopsy-proven LS who are otherwise in good health but are nonresponders to topical steroid treatment prior to inclusion are eligible for the trial. A total of 68 participants will be randomly allocated via a random number generator to receive either PRP or saline injections to areas of the vulva with LS. All participants will be blinded to the intervention received. Participants will be followed up with assessments of clinical LS signs, subjective symptom scores, and quality of life questionnaires by blinded assessors at 4 timepoints: baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome is the clinical scoring system for LS—the total LS score. Results: Recruitment commenced in May 2020 and concluded in November 2023. This study closed in September 2024 due to slow recruitment. Data are being analyzed in 2025, and results are expected to be published in late 2025. Conclusions: This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRP injections compared to those of saline injections for the treatment of vulvar LS, potentially providing a novel therapeutic option for patients who do not respond to topical steroids. Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001321235p; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1207-4893; anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375536 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/68871

BACKGROUND Vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic relapsing dermatosis commonly affecting the anogenital region in postmenopausal women, though it can affect people of any age and sex. The current gold standard treatment is lifelong topical steroid application to reduce symptoms and prevent the progression of disease, causing irreversible architectural change to the vulval tissue. LS is associated with decreased quality of life and increased risk of vulvar neoplasia. Alternatives to current treatments are highly desired by both clinicians and patients. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood product containing high concentrations of platelets and growth factors and is hypothesized to promote wound healing. PRP has been reported to improve symptoms of LS in several case reports and uncontrolled trials. OBJECTIVE This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PRP versus saline injections to improve the clinical signs and symptoms of LS. METHODS This is a protocol for a 12-month, single-center, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of PRP for LS compared to saline. Adult female patients with biopsy-proven LS who are otherwise in good health but are nonresponders to topical steroid treatment prior to inclusion are eligible for the trial. A total of 68 participants will be randomly allocated via a random number generator to receive either PRP or saline injections to areas of the vulva with LS. All participants will be blinded to the intervention received. Participants will be followed up with assessments of clinical LS signs, subjective symptom scores, and quality of life questionnaires by blinded assessors at 4 timepoints: baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome is the clinical scoring system for LS—the total LS score. RESULTS Recruitment commenced in May 2020 and concluded in November 2023. This study closed in September 2024 due to slow recruitment. Data are being analyzed in 2025, and results are expected to be published in late 2025. CONCLUSIONS This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRP injections compared to those of saline injections for the treatment of vulvar LS, potentially providing a novel therapeutic option for patients who do not respond to topical steroids. CLINICALTRIAL Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001321235p; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1207-4893; anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375536 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/68871