Comparison of Er:YAG and CO2 laser therapy for women with stress urinary incontinence

• Published in: Lasers in surgery and medicine Vol. 55; no. 7; pp. 653 - 661
• Main Authors: Li, Pei‐Chen, Ding, Dah‐Ching
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2023
• Subjects: Bladder; Carbon dioxide; Carbon dioxide lasers; Clinical trials; CO2; Er:YAG laser; laser; Lasers; Questionnaires; Semiconductor lasers; stress urinary incontinence; Therapy; Urinary incontinence; YAG lasers
• ISSN: 0196-8092; 1096-9101; 1096-9101
• DOI: 10.1002/lsm.23694

Objective To compare the effectiveness of Er:YAG and CO2 laser therapies for treating female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods This retrospective study included 139 women who were divided into four groups: group 1 received two therapy sessions with the Er:YAG laser, group 2 received two therapy sessions with the CO2 laser, group 3 received one therapy session with the Er:YAG laser, and group 4 received one therapy session with the CO2 laser. Patients completed three questionnaires to assess SUI symptom severity at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after laser therapy. Results Urinary incontinence symptoms significantly improved in groups 1 and 2 at both the 1‐ and 3‐month follow‐up evaluations compared to the baseline (p < 0.001). Symptoms improved after one therapy session in groups 3 and 4 at the 3‐month follow‐up (p < 0.001). The Er:YAG laser was more effective than the CO2 laser in improving SUI symptoms (Urogenital Distress Inventory 6 and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire 7) 3 months after treatment, regardless of the number of sessions. Both Er:YAG and CO2 laser therapies were found to be effective in reducing symptoms associated with an overactive bladder, as demonstrated by improvements in overactive bladder symptom scores. Two sessions of laser therapy were more effective than one. Conclusion Vaginal laser therapy could be an effective alternative treatment for mild to moderate SUI. The Er:YAG laser was more effective than CO2 laser therapy, with results lasting for at least 3 months. However, further large‐scale, randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.