RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD), including vaginal laxity (VL), can lead to a decrease in quality of life and affect partner relationships. AIM: We aimed to investigate the associated factors of VL and FSD and their relationship with other pelvic floor disorders in a female population. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital from July to December 2022. All women referred to clinical care at the urogynecology clinic were included. Participants were assessed according to sociodemographic and clinical aspects, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system, sexual function, VL, sexual attitudes, sexual distress, sexual quality of life, vaginal symptoms, and pelvic floor disorders. Unadjusted and adjusted associated factors of VL and FSD were analyzed. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the identification of the associated factors of VL and FSD in a female population, and secondary outcomes included the association between VL and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with the questionnaire scores. RESULTS: Among participants (N = 300), vaginal delivery, multiparity, perineal laceration, menopause, and gel hormone were significantly more frequent in those reporting VL (all P < .05). When compared with nulliparity, primiparity and multiparity increased the odds of VL by approximately 4 and 12 times, respectively (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.26 [95% CI, 2.05-8.85]; OR, 12.77 [95% CI, 6.53-24.96]). Menopause and perineal laceration increased the odds of VL by 4 and 6 times (unadjusted OR, 4.65 [95% CI, 2.73-7.93]; OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 3.58-10.49]). In multivariate analysis, menopause, primiparity, multiparity, and POP remained associated with VL. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Parity, as an obstetric factor, and menopause and staging of POP, as clinical factors, were associated with VL. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The investigation of associated factors for VL will contribute to the understanding of its pathophysiology. The study design makes it impossible to carry out causal inference. CONCLUSION: Menopause, primiparity, multiparity, and POP were highly associated with VL complaints in multivariate analysis.
Asunto(s)
Paridad , Calidad de Vida , Disfunciones Sexuales Fisiológicas , Vagina , Humanos , Femenino , Estudios Transversales , Disfunciones Sexuales Fisiológicas/epidemiología , Disfunciones Sexuales Fisiológicas/etiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Menopausia/fisiología , Parto Obstétrico/estadística & datos numéricos , Parto Obstétrico/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , EmbarazoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite several treatments that have been used for women reporting vaginal laxity (VL), to our knowledge no systematic review is available on the topic so far. AIM: In this study, we sought to summarize the best available evidence about the efficacy and safety of interventions for treating VL, whether conservative or surgical. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for reports of clinical trials published from database inception to September 2022. Studies selected for inclusion were in the English language and were performed to investigate any type of treatment for VL, with or without a comparator, whether nonrandomized studies or randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Case reports and studies without a clear definition of VL were excluded. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were interventions (laser, radiofrequency, surgery, and topical treatment), adverse effects, sexual function, pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength, and improvement of VL by the VL questionnaire (VLQ). RESULTS: From 816 records, 38 studies remained in the final analysis. Laser and radiofrequency (RF) were the energy-based treatment devices most frequently studied. Pooled data from eight observational studies have shown improved sexual function assessed by a Female Sexual Function Index score mean difference (MD) of 6.51 (95% CI, 5.61-7.42; i2 = 85%, P < .01) before and after intervention, whether by RF (MD, 6.00; 95% CI, 4.26-7.73; i2 = 80%; P < .001) or laser (MD, 6.83; 95% CI, 5.01-8.65; i2 = 92%; P < .01). However, this finding was not shown when only 3 RCTs were included, even when separated by type of intervention (RF or laser). When RF treatment was compared to sham controls, VLQ scores did not improve (MD, 1.01; 95% CI, -0.38 to 2.40; i2 = 94%; P < .001). Patient PFM strength improved after interventions were performed (MD, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.02-7.42; i2 = 77%; P < .001). The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions) tool classified all non-RCTs at serious risk of bias, except for 1 study, and the risk of bias-1 analysis found a low and unclear risk of bias for all RCTs. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) certainty of the evidence was moderate for sexual function and the VLQ questionnaire and low for PFM strength. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Sexual function in women with VL who underwent RF and laser treatment improved in observational studies but not in RCTs. Improvement in PFM strength was observed in women with VL after the intervention. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Crucial issues were raised for the understanding of VL, such as lack of standardization of the definition and for the development of future prospective studies. A limitation of the study was that the heterogeneity of the interventions and different follow-up periods did not make it possible to pool all available data. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal tightening did not improve sensation in women with VL after intervention, whereas RF and laser improved sexual function in women with VL according to data from observational studies, but not from RCTs. PFM strength was improved after intervention in women with VL.