Efficacy of ablative laser therapy for vulvar lichen sclerosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Lasers Med SciNov 6, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchObstetrics & GynecologyDermatologyOpen access

Marie Line Chedid, Laurentia Fidella Averina Setia Santoso, Reina Ibrahim et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed randomized trials of fractional ablative laser therapy in adult women with confirmed vulvar lichen sclerosus. Three RCTs involving 151 patients compared fractional CO2 laser with sham laser, topical clobetasol, or a lower-dose CO2 laser protocol, with follow-up of 18 to 32 weeks. Pooled results did not show statistically significant improvement in patient-reported symptoms (VAS mean difference, 1.04; 95% CI, -4.71 to 6.79; P=0.52) or disease severity (standardized mean difference, -0.27; 95% CI, -1.47 to 0.94; P=0.44). No adverse events were reported.

Key findings

  • Across three RCTs (151 patients), the VAS total mean difference was 1.04 (95% CI, -4.71 to 6.79; P=0.52; I²=58%).
  • The pooled standardized mean difference in LS severity scores was -0.27 (95% CI, -1.47 to 0.94; P=0.44; I²=65%).
  • No adverse events were reported in the included trials.

Why it matters

Vulvar lichen sclerosus can involve both symptom burden and visible disease severity, so treatments need evidence of benefit across these outcomes. This synthesis found no statistically significant improvement with fractional ablative laser therapy compared with the studied alternatives. The findings help clarify that current trial evidence is insufficient to establish laser therapy as an effective treatment option.

What to keep in mind

Evidence came from only three small RCTs, with follow-up of 18 to 32 weeks; the authors call for larger, adequately powered trials with standardized outcomes.

Source

Published in Lasers Med Sci. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.