Are brand-named sexual procedures evidence-based and who might consider them?
Brand-named sexual procedures—such as the “O-Shot”, “G-Shot”, or vaginal laser treatments marketed for sexual enhancement—often lack robust, independent clinical evidence. Most of these procedures are not endorsed by leading regulatory bodies like the NHS, NICE, or RCOG, and many are considered experimental or cosmetic rather than medically necessary. They may be considered by individuals seeking symptom relief when conventional treatments have been exhausted, but informed consent and realistic expectations are essential.
Show Detailed Answer
The rise of “intimate aesthetics” and sexual wellness clinics has brought a wave of trademarked procedures promising enhanced sensation, improved lubrication, or “rejuvenation” of vaginal tissues. These treatments often carry appealing brand names and are marketed directly to consumers through social media, celebrity endorsements, and aesthetic clinics. However, the scientific foundation for many of these procedures remains weak, and the marketing frequently outpaces the evidence.
It is important to distinguish between procedures backed by peer-reviewed research and those that are primarily commercial products. Many branded treatments use legitimate technologies—such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), radiofrequency energy, or fractional CO₂ lasers—but apply them in ways that have not been rigorously tested in randomised controlled trials for sexual function specifically.
What Are These Procedures?
Common brand-named procedures include:
- O-Shot (Orgasm Shot): Involves injecting platelet-rich plasma (PRP) derived from the patient’s own blood into the clitoris and upper vaginal wall. Claimed benefits include increased arousal, easier orgasm, and improved lubrication.
- G-Shot: Injection of hyaluronic acid filler into the anterior vaginal wall (G-spot area) to temporarily increase its size, theoretically enhancing stimulation.
- Vaginal Laser “Rejuvenation”: Use of fractional CO₂ or erbium lasers to heat vaginal tissue, claimed to stimulate collagen production, tighten tissue, and improve lubrication. Often marketed under brand names like MonaLisa Touch or FemiLift.
- Radiofrequency Treatments: Non-invasive devices that deliver controlled heat to vaginal tissue, with similar claims to laser treatments.
What Does the Evidence Say?
The evidence base varies significantly by procedure:
- PRP (O-Shot): While PRP is established in orthopaedics and wound healing, there are very few high-quality, peer-reviewed studies on its use for sexual function. Most published data come from small, uncontrolled case series or industry-sponsored trials. The mechanism for how PRP might improve sexual sensation is not clearly understood.
- Hyaluronic Acid Fillers (G-Shot): There is minimal published evidence. The effect is temporary (lasting a few months), and there is no consensus on whether increasing tissue volume translates to improved sexual satisfaction.
- Vaginal Lasers: Some studies suggest modest benefit for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM)—vaginal dryness and atrophy—but high-quality randomised trials are limited. In 2018, the FDA issued a safety communication warning against using energy-based devices for “vaginal rejuvenation” due to lack of approval and reports of serious adverse events, including burns and scarring.
- Radiofrequency: Similar to lasers, early data are promising for tissue tightening and mild GSM symptoms, but long-term safety and efficacy data are lacking.
Regulatory Perspective
In the UK, the MHRA and professional bodies such as the RCOG and British Society for Sexual Medicine have not endorsed these procedures as first-line treatments. The NHS does not routinely offer them, and they are typically only available privately. NICE guidance on menopause (NG23) recommends topical oestrogen as the gold standard for GSM, not laser or energy-based devices.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the FDA have both cautioned against the use of vaginal energy-based devices for cosmetic or sexual enhancement outside of clinical trials, citing insufficient evidence and potential harms.
Who Might Consider These Procedures?
Despite the limited evidence, some individuals may consider brand-named procedures in specific circumstances:
- After First-Line Treatments Have Failed: If topical oestrogen, lubricants, pelvic floor physiotherapy, and psychosexual therapy have not provided adequate relief.
- Personal Autonomy and Informed Choice: Some women feel empowered by exploring all available options, even experimental ones, provided they are fully informed of the risks, costs, and lack of guarantees.
- Menopausal Women with Moderate GSM: Early data suggest laser therapy may offer short-term symptom relief in select cases, though topical oestrogen remains the evidence-based standard.
- Individuals Who Cannot Use Hormonal Therapies: Women with a history of hormone-sensitive cancers may seek non-hormonal alternatives, though evidence remains weak.
What Questions Should You Ask?
If you are considering a brand-named procedure, ensure you have a detailed consultation with a qualified clinician. Key questions include:
- Is this treatment approved by the MHRA or FDA for this specific indication?
- Can you provide published, peer-reviewed evidence (not testimonials) supporting its use?
- What are the risks, including burns, scarring, infection, or worsening symptoms?
- How many treatments are needed, and what is the total cost?
- What is the expected duration of benefit, and will I need repeat treatments?
- What happens if it doesn’t work or causes harm?
Common Concerns & Myths
“Celebrities use it, so it must be safe and effective.”
Celebrity endorsement is not the same as clinical evidence. Many influencers are paid to promote these treatments and have not undergone independent medical review.
“It’s non-surgical, so there’s no risk.”
False. Injections, lasers, and radiofrequency can all cause tissue damage, scarring, pain, or infection. “Non-surgical” does not mean risk-free.
“If the NHS doesn’t offer it, it must be because they can’t afford it.”
The NHS does not offer many brand-named procedures because they lack sufficient evidence of safety and effectiveness, not because of cost alone.
Clinical Context
Sexual function is complex and influenced by hormones, blood flow, nerve sensitivity, pelvic floor tone, psychological well-being, and relationship dynamics. No single procedure can address all of these factors. Evidence-based care begins with a thorough assessment to identify the root cause of symptoms—whether hormonal deficiency, pelvic floor dysfunction, skin conditions, or psychological factors—and then tailoring treatment accordingly. Brand-named procedures may play a role in highly selected cases, but they should never replace proven first-line therapies. Educational only. Results vary. Not a cure.
Evidence-Based Approaches
Self-Care & Lifestyle
Before considering invasive or expensive procedures, optimise foundational habits:
- Vaginal Moisturisers: Regular use of hyaluronic acid-based moisturisers can improve tissue hydration and comfort.
- Lubricants: Use generous, body-safe, non-perfumed lubricants during intimacy to reduce friction.
- Pelvic Floor Exercises: Regular pelvic floor training (Kegels or reverse Kegels) can improve muscle tone, blood flow, and sensation.
- Communication: Open dialogue with your partner about what feels comfortable can reduce anxiety and improve satisfaction.
Medical & Specialist Options
Evidence-based treatments should always be considered first:
- Topical Oestrogen: The gold standard for treating vaginal atrophy and dryness. Available as creams, pessaries, or vaginal rings. Safe for long-term use and recommended by NICE.
- Pelvic Health Physiotherapy: Specialist physio can address muscle tightness, scar tissue, and guarding that contribute to pain or reduced sensation.
- Psychosexual Therapy: Cognitive-behavioural or mindfulness-based approaches help address anxiety, trauma, or relationship issues affecting sexual function.
- Systemic HRT: For perimenopausal and menopausal women, systemic hormone replacement can improve overall well-being, mood, and libido.
If you are exploring specialist care, you can meet the clinical team to understand their qualifications and approach. Many patients also wish to book a consultation to discuss personalised options.
C. Red Flags (When to see a GP)
Seek medical review if you experience sudden loss of sensation, persistent pain, unusual discharge, bleeding between periods or after menopause, or pelvic masses. Do not delay assessment for marketed procedures.
External Resources:
Educational only. Results vary. Not a cure.
Evidence Check: "Brand Named" procedures often have FDA clearance for functional issues (like incontinence or atrophy) but are marketed "off-label" for sexual enhancement. The evidence is strongest for treating physical symptoms (dryness/laxity) that secondarily improve sex, rather than "boosting" orgasms directly.
The Evidence Breakdown
Is it evidence-based?
Yes, for Incontinence. Clinical studies show a 95% improvement in quality of life for stress incontinence.
For Sex: Improvement is a "secondary gain." By strengthening the pelvic floor, blood flow and sensation often improve, but it is primarily a muscle-building device.
Best For: Women with bladder leaks (SUI) or a "weak/loose" feeling post-childbirth.
Is it evidence-based?
Emerging. It is considered "experimental" by many bodies, but evidence is growing for Lichen Sclerosus (skin regeneration) and treating scar tissue.
For Orgasms: Data is largely anecdotal or from small pilot studies showing improved sensitivity.
Best For: Women with Lichen Sclerosus, scarring (episiotomy), or reduced sensation due to nerve damage.
Evidence Status: High. NICE guidelines acknowledge its safety profile. Studies show it is effective for treating Atrophy (GSM)—dryness and thinning—often comparable to local estrogen.
Best For: Post-menopausal women who cannot use (or dislike) hormone creams and suffer from painful dryness.
MYTH: "These procedures will give me an orgasm if I've never had one."
REALITY: Unlikely. If you have never climaxed (Primary Anorgasmia), the issue is often neurological or psychological, not structural. These treatments restore lost function; they rarely create new function where none existed.