# Diode Laser and Radiofrequency for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause: A Comparative Analysis

## TL;DR

This study compares diode laser and radiofrequency treatments for menopause-related vaginal health issues, finding both effective but radiofrequency more comfortable.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of diode laser and radiofrequency for GSM, highlighting their effectiveness and differences in patient comfort.

## Key findings

- Both diode laser and radiofrequency improved sexual function and vaginal health in GSM patients.
- Radiofrequency treatment was associated with significantly lower procedural discomfort than diode laser.
- No adverse events were observed with either treatment modality.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is a chronic, progressive condition that deeply affects sexual wellbeing and vaginal health. As many women—especially cancer survivors—seek non-hormonal alternatives, energy-based devices have gained increasing interest. However, comparative data between different technologies remain limited. This retrospective, non-randomized study aimed to directly compare the effectiveness and tolerability of fractional diode laser and monopolar radiofrequency (RF) in women with GSM. Methods: The study included 91 women treated with diode laser (n = 43) or RF (n = 48). Baseline evaluation comprised the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-19), Vaginal Health Index (VHI), and symptom severity. Post-treatment assessment included FSFI-19, VHI, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and procedural discomfort (VAS 0–100). Results: Both modalities resulted in clear clinical benefits. Among women treated with the diode laser, FSFI total scores rose from 11.0 ± 8.4 to 15.3 ± 9.8 (p < 0.001), while VHI improved from 12.6 ± 3.0 to 15.9 ± 3.6 (p < 0.001). Similarly, RF treatment increased FSFI scores from 8.9 ± 7.4 to 14.3 ± 9.5 (p < 0.001) and VHI from 13.5 ± 3.0 to 16.5 ± 3.3 (p < 0.001). The overall degree of improvement was comparable between groups (ΔFSFI: 4.3 ± 6.5 vs. 5.4 ± 7.1; ΔVHI: 3.3 ± 2.9 vs. 3.0 ± 3.0). Despite this, a higher proportion of patients in the RF group reported PGI-I scores < 4 (95.5% vs. 74.3%; p = 0.010), in parallel with significantly lower procedural discomfort compared to laser treatment (VAS 14.1 vs. 53.6; p = 0.001). No adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Vaginal diode laser and monopolar RF proved to be effective, non-hormonal interventions capable of improving sexual function and restoring vaginal health in women with GSM. However, RF demonstrated superior tolerability, suggesting it may provide a more comfortable therapeutic experience without sacrificing clinical effectiveness.