Vaginal Rejuvenation in Charleston and Mt. Pleasant, SC

Reviewed by Ashley Harwyn, PA-C, ABAAHP  |  A4M Board Certified  |  Updated October 2, 2026

Vaginal rejuvenation is a marketing umbrella, not a diagnosis. Here is what the evidence genuinely supports, what the FDA has warned against, and what usually should come first.

We offer IntimaLase and the O-Shot at Solcara, and you will hear exactly where each one stands on the evidence. The goal here is not to talk you into or out of anything. It is to make sure that if you choose an elective procedure, you choose it with the real numbers in front of you, and that we have first ruled out a condition we could actually treat.

• In 2018 the FDA warned against energy-based devices (laser and radiofrequency) marketed for vaginal “rejuvenation,” saying their safety and effectiveness for that use have not been established, and citing reports of burns, scarring, and painful sex.[1]
• In a double-blind, sham-controlled trial, fractional CO2 laser was no better than a fake procedure for postmenopausal vaginal symptoms at 12 months. Both groups improved, which points to a large placebo effect.[2]
• Evidence specific to IntimaLase, an Er:YAG laser, is preliminary and low quality, with no sham-controlled trial confirming it works.[7]
• The O-Shot (platelet-rich plasma) is not FDA-approved for sexual function or incontinence, and the published evidence is a handful of mostly uncontrolled studies.[5]
• If you have a real condition (menopausal dryness, stress incontinence, or lichen sclerosus), proven first-line treatments exist and should usually come first.[6]
• A responsible clinic examines you and names the problem before it reaches for a device, which is how we do it in Mount Pleasant and Charleston.

What vaginal rejuvenation actually means

The single most useful thing to understand before comparing anything: “vaginal rejuvenation” is a marketing category, not a medical diagnosis.[4] The term gets used for menopausal dryness, mild urinary leakage, the appearance of the labia, and a vague sense of laxity, and those are completely different issues with completely different answers. The first real step is to separate a treatable medical condition from an elective cosmetic goal, because the right path is not the same for the two.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is direct about this: cosmetic vaginal procedures are often performed without a clear medical indication and without adequate data on safety or effectiveness, and patients deserve to be counseled on exactly that.[4] That is not a reason to feel any shame about wanting to address a symptom that bothers you. It is a reason to insist on a real evaluation first, so you are treating the actual problem rather than paying for a procedure that may not do what the advertisement implies.

What women ask Ashley about rejuvenation

Ashley Harwyn, PA-C explains what women usually mean when they ask about vaginal rejuvenation, and what she checks for before any procedure is on the table.

What the evidence on laser and IntimaLase shows

Laser rejuvenation, including Fotona's IntimaLase (an Er:YAG laser) and fractional CO2 devices, is marketed to stimulate collagen in the vaginal wall and improve laxity, dryness, and mild leakage. The idea sounds reasonable, and that is exactly what gives the advertising its pull. Plausible is not the same as proven, and this is where the evidence gets uncomfortable for the industry.

Start with the FDA. In 2018 it issued a safety communication warning against energy-based devices marketed for vaginal rejuvenation, stating plainly that their safety and effectiveness for these uses have not been established, and noting reports of vaginal burns, scarring, and painful intercourse.[1] These lasers are FDA-cleared for certain gynecologic uses, such as destroying abnormal or precancerous tissue, but they are not cleared for rejuvenation or for treating menopause, incontinence, or sexual-function symptoms.[1] The agency went further and acted against device makers marketing these products deceptively for vaginal cosmetic uses.[3] A sales page will blur that distinction. We will not.

Then there is the strongest single piece of evidence, a rigorous trial. In a double-blind, randomized study, women with postmenopausal vaginal symptoms received either fractional CO2 laser or an identical-feeling sham procedure, and at 12 months the laser was not better than the sham.[2] Both groups improved, which tells you how powerful placebo and expectation are for these symptoms. Evidence specific to the Er:YAG IntimaLase device is thinner still, limited to small, often manufacturer-linked studies with no sham-controlled trial confirming that it works.[7] None of this means a laser can never help anyone. The accurate word is “unproven,” and a guarantee of results goes well beyond what the data supports.

IntimaLase, the O-Shot, and surgery, compared

With the evidence laid out, the options line up clearly on what matters: how invasive each is, how strong the evidence is, and what it realistically does. The table below compares them honestly, so you can see what you would actually be choosing.