Curated research to understand technology benefits, comparisons, and limitations, prioritizing studies that identify devices or brands in our portfolio.
Brand / device family2023 · Barba M et al.
LaEvita / LEONARDO: an early GSM study
Efficacy of a Diode Vaginal Laser in the Treatment of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause
Bioengineering 10(10):1158
Prospective · 26 patients · No comparison group · Assessment one month after three monthly sessions
Findings: 19 of 26 patients (73.1%) reported improvement on PGI-I. Vaginal health and symptom scores improved; no adverse events were reported during this observation.
Points to consider: Small sample, no control or sham group, and short follow-up. It does not establish superiority to standard therapy, benefit for SUI, or long-term safety.
Device & relevance: LEONARDO Dual diode laser, Biolitec Italia, 980 + 1470 nm, named in the methods; the power variant needs to be matched.
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10101158
Brand / device family2024 · Vitale SG et al.
LEONARDO for GSM: follow-up to six months
Efficacy and Safety of Non-Ablative Dual Wavelength Diode Laser Therapy for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause: A Single-Center Prospective Study
Advances in Therapy 41:4617–4627
Prospective pilot study · 22 postmenopausal women · Single centre · Three sessions · No control group
Findings: At six months, VHIS increased from 12 to 19.27. Vaginal dryness scores fell from 7.72 to 3.72; burning and dyspareunia also improved.
Points to consider: A small study without a comparator. Before–after results cannot separate intervention effects from other factors or establish superiority or long-term safety.
Device & relevance: The abstract names a LEONARDO dual-wavelength diode laser. The offered variant and configuration must be matched to the full publication.
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-024-03004-7
Procedure evidence · Other devices2021 · Bizjak-Ogrinc U, Senčar S
Laser labiaplasty: satisfaction and complications in a series of 80 patients
Sutureless Laser Labiaplasty of Labia Minora
Sexual Medicine 9:100406
Retrospective · 80 patients · No control group · Satisfaction assessed around day 60
Findings: 76 patients were very satisfied and four were satisfied. Seven wound infections, one bleeding event, and one haematoma were recorded.
Points to consider: Retrospective bias, no randomised comparator, and limited follow-up. This does not establish that laser is superior to other techniques.
Device & relevance: Er:YAG 2940 nm SP Dynamis (Fotona), not biolitec. Included as procedural context; it does not establish indications or outcomes for labiaplasty with LEONARDO.
DOI: 10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100406
No matching studies. Try another term or select all journals.
Reading evidence in context.
A model label means the study names a device matching the catalog. A brand label identifies the same brand, while the offered model still needs matching. Procedural and general clinical evidence provide context; findings do not automatically establish benefits for every device.
Summaries support education and discussion with healthcare professionals. Links open original publications; full-text availability depends on publisher access. Curated September 9, 2026.
