"Interview is with Dr. Reza Lankarani, General Surgeon and Surgical Innovation Lead/Researcher and the administrator of Surgical Pioneering newsletter. "
The Vagilangelo® procedure, detailed on https://www.vagilangelo.com, is a minimally invasive vaginal rejuvenation technique.
However, the absence of functional data or longitudinal follow-up limits its immediate clinical applicability. Future work should integrate this anatomical data with patient-reported outcomes, as emphasized in for aesthetic surgery research. The article also underscores the need for sustained funding in basic surgical science, as neuroanatomical studies require resource-intensive methodologies. While the research advances theoretical knowledge, its impact on surgical training and global health disparities remains underexplored.
Weaknesses:
- Lack of Peer-Reviewed Evidence: The absence of clinical trials or long-term follow-up studies limits the ability to objectively evaluate the procedure’s efficacy, safety, and durability of results.
- Limited Tightening Effect: The webpage notes that Vagilangelo® does not achieve the same degree of vaginal tightening as traditional vaginoplasty, which may disappoint patients seeking significant structural correction.
- Unproven PRP Benefits: While PRP is promising, its efficacy in enhancing vaginal sensitivity and regeneration lacks strong evidence specific to this application, raising questions about its added value.
- Potential Overstatement: High satisfaction rates cited on the webpage are anecdotal, risking overpromising outcomes without scientific backing.
Comparison to Peer-Reviewed Literature:
The Vagilangelo® procedure, while unique in its approach, lags behind these modalities in terms of published research, placing it at a disadvantage in evidence-based practice.
Recent literature in The Journal of Sexual Medicine (2023) reviews minimally invasive vaginal rejuvenation techniques, highlighting their potential but stressing the need for standardized outcome measures and long-term data—criteria the Vagilangelo® procedure currently does not meet.
Similarly, a 2022 article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology emphasizes the importance of clinical trials for emerging gynecological innovations, noting variability in patient outcomes across techniques. In contrast, energy-based devices (e.g., laser or radiofrequency treatments) have garnered more research attention, with studies like those by Krychman et al. (2021) providing preliminary evidence of efficacy, though still calling for larger trials.
A 2017 review in PMC (Vaginal Rejuvenation: Current Perspectives) discusses the controversy surrounding these procedures, noting that while surgical methods like vaginoplasty are well-established, non-surgical alternatives are gaining traction but require more research to establish their safety and efficacy.
A 2016 article in PMC (Vaginal Rejuvenation Using Energy-Based Devices) emphasizes the potential of energy-based devices to stimulate collagen production and improve vaginal laxity, but also calls for further studies to confirm long-term benefits.
Recent literature on vaginal rejuvenation highlights a growing interest in minimally invasive techniques, particularly energy-based devices such as lasers and radiofrequency. In contrast, the Vagilangelo procedure incorporates surgical suturing, which may be considered more invasive than purely non-surgical energy-based methods, though still less so than traditional vaginoplasty.
Its use of PRP aligns with emerging trends in regenerative medicine, but the lack of peer-reviewed evidence places it at a disadvantage compared to energy-based devices, which have at least some preliminary clinical data.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) notes the increasing popularity of non-surgical aesthetic genital procedures, including those using radiofrequency or laser energy, but highlights the need for standardized outcome measures (Nonsurgical Aesthetic Genital Procedures). The Vagilangelo procedure, while innovative, lags in scientific scrutiny, making direct comparison challenging without further research.
Ethical and Clinical Considerations:
As a surgeon, and researcher, I find the Vagilangelo® procedure claims must be tempered by the absence of robust scientific evidence.
The webpage relies heavily on anecdotal testimonials and lacks peer-reviewed studies to substantiate its efficacy and safety. This is a significant concern in a field where patient expectations and clinical outcomes must be carefully aligned.
Additionally, while PRP is increasingly used in regenerative medicine, its specific benefits in vaginal rejuvenation remain understudied, necessitating caution until more data emerges.
Given the controversy surrounding vaginal rejuvenation, ethical considerations are paramount. The lack of peer-reviewed evidence for Vagilangelo raises concerns about informed consent, as patients may be misled by anecdotal success stories. The field of cosmetic gynecology is debated, with some professionals advocating for more regulation and others highlighting patient demand.
Conclusion:
The Vagilangelo® procedure is promising but requires rigorous research to confirm its efficacy and safety. Caution is advised until clinical evidence emerges.
The primary weakness is the absence of peer-reviewed clinical trials or long-term follow-up studies, limiting objective evaluation of its efficacy and safety.
The procedure is noted to provide less vaginal tightening than traditional vaginoplasty, which may not meet the expectations of patients seeking significant structural correction.
The use of PRP, while promising in regenerative medicine, lacks strong evidence specific to vaginal rejuvenation, particularly for enhancing sensitivity and lubrication.
Additionally, the high satisfaction rates cited on the webpage are anecdotal, risking overpromising outcomes without scientific validation, which could mislead patients and complicate informed consent processes.
The procedure weaknesses—particularly the lack of peer-reviewed evidence and limited tightening effect—underscore the need for caution. Clinical trials comparing it to established methods, such as surgical vaginoplasty or energy-based therapies, would significantly strengthen its standing in the medical community.
Finally, I recommend that clinicians approach this procedure with caution, ensuring patients are fully informed of the limited scientific backing and potential risks. Also the patients and providers approach this procedure with informed optimism, awaiting further research to validate its claims.
Reza Lankarani
Get full access to Reza Lankarani at lankarani.substack.com/subscribe
