# Sexual Quality of Life in Postmenopausal Women: A Comparative Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravaginal PRP Therapy Versus Local Hormonal Treatments

## TL;DR

This study compared PRP therapy and hormonal treatments for improving sexual health in postmenopausal women, finding both effective with PRP showing similar benefits and fewer side effects.

## Contribution

Demonstrates PRP as a hormone-free, well-tolerated alternative to estrogen therapy for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause.

## Key findings

- Both PRP and hormonal treatments improved sexual function and vaginal health in postmenopausal women.
- PRP therapy showed slightly higher improvements in sexual function scores without significant statistical difference.
- PRP had fewer side effects and no systemic symptoms, supporting its safety profile.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a prevalent and distressing condition in postmenopausal women, often leading to sexual dysfunction characterized by vaginal dryness, pain, and reduced libido. While local estrogen therapy remains the standard treatment, due to safety concerns and contraindications, there is growing interest in the exploration of alternative interventions. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravaginal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy versus local hormonal treatment in improving sexual function and vaginal health in postmenopausal women. Materials and Methods: A prospective, controlled clinical trial was conducted between January 2023 and December 2024 across three private gynecology clinics in Timișoara, Romania. Ninety postmenopausal women aged between 50 and 65 years with FSFI scores ≤ 23 were randomized into two groups: one receiving three monthly sessions of autologous PRP and the other undergoing 12 weeks of vaginal estriol therapy. Outcomes were assessed using validated tools—the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Vaginal Health Index (VHI), the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and patient satisfaction scores—at baseline, week 6, and week 12. Results: Both of the treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in FSFI and VHI scores at 12 weeks, with the PRP group showing a slightly higher, though not statistically significant, mean increase in the total FSFI (+10.1 vs. +9.3 points). Clinical gains were also observed in lubrication, elasticity, and dyspareunia. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups (93.3% PRP vs. 88.9% hormonal), and there were no reports of serious adverse events during the study period. The PRP group exhibited fewer side effects, without systemic symptoms, supporting its favorable safety profile. Conclusions: PRP therapy is a well-tolerated, hormone-free treatment that offers clinically meaningful improvements in sexual function and vaginal health, comparable to estrogen therapy. It may be particularly beneficial for women with contraindications to hormones or in advanced postmenopause. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm these findings and optimize treatment protocols.