Effectiveness of Vaginal Estrogen VS Laser Therapy for Postmenopausal Atrophy: A Comparative Study of Treatment Modalities

Background: Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) is one of the common complications in women which occurs after post menopause. Women with genitourinary syndrome experiences vaginal dryness, irritation and dyspareunia regarding treatment, vaginal estrogen was given but new treatments are introduced because of its effectiveness and the side effects of hormones cause by traditional management. Professional experts continue to debate which therapy method works better between vaginal estrogen and laser therapy therefore current research needs to be established for a complete review of evidence. Objectives: This comprehensive review investigates how vaginal estrogen performs in relation to laser therapy when treating postmenopausal atrophy and also addresses their safety aspects. The review examines important symptomatic changes together with patient satisfaction and identifies safety complications of both interventions. Methodology: A comprehensive search of studies between 2015 and 2024 was conducted within PubMed along with Scopus and Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. Two types of studies including Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Cohort studies and Systematic Reviews evaluated vaginal estrogen versus laser therapy for Germ Cell Mastitis. Researchers evaluated symptom relief together with vaginal health index scores and histological changes and adverse events in their analyses. The researchers used PRISMA standards to perform both data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Results: Both vaginal estrogen and laser treatment show equivalent potential in subsiding GSM symptoms by decreasing vaginal dryness together with dyspareunia and urinary discomfort. Maximum symptom relief was witnessed more in laser therapy as compared to estrogen therapy. People expressed equal satisfaction with GSM treatment when using laser therapy or vaginal estrogen although laser therapy demanded multiple procedures at a higher initial expense. Users of both laser therapy and vaginal estrogen experienced low frequencies of adverse events yet laser treatment resulted in increased reports of immediate discomfort and localized skin irritation. Conclusion: The treatment options of vaginal estrogen and laser therapy provide effective relief from GSM symptoms without causing significant side effects. Laser therapy stands as a suitable non-hormonal treatment option after estrogen in patients which are recommended by doctors to avoid hormonal treatments due to medical reasons. Additional research needs to provide detailed performance guidelines that help decide which therapy method is more suitable.