Should I stay for local hormone therapy or should I go for radiofrequency to treat vulvovaginal atrophy? A patient preference trial

Abstract

Abstract Objective To compare patient satisfaction rate in postmenopausal women who chose dynamic quadripolar radiofrequency or topical estrogens as their preferred treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Methods Patients were divided into two groups according to their preference: one was treated with estrogen therapy (ET) and the other with dynamic quadripolar radiofrequency treatment (RF). All patients included fulfilled a series of validated questionnaires, at baseline and at the 6-mo follow-up, in order to evaluate the discomfort degree associated with the presence of vulvovaginal atrophy and the impact of the reported symptoms on QoL and sexuality. Results After propensity score matching, the proportion of women considering themselves satisfied with their genital health conditions was extremely small at study entry (5.2% of the RF group and 6.9% of the ET group), while at a 6-mo follow-up, it increased to 46.7% and 46.6%, respectively. No statistically significant between-group differences were found regarding mean numerical rating scale scores for dryness and dyspareunia at follow-up (5.6 ± 2.6 vs 5.3 ± 2.3, P = 0.5; and 2.9 ± 2.5 vs 3.0 ± 2.7, P = 0.46). At 6-mo follow-up, we observed no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the other items evaluated. RF treatment was overall well tolerated. Conclusion The use of quadripolar radiofrequency devices seems effective, but it is not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with topical hormone treatment, which is a substantially cheaper and more convenient treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Therefore, we suggest limiting the use of dynamic quadripolar radiofrequency selectively when topical estrogens are not effective, not tolerated, or contraindicated.