Nu-V vs. ThermiVa
Doctor Answers 4
You are asking questions which can not be answered
I can appreciate your inquiry but you are asking questions which can not be answered. Unless there is direct head to head comparison between the two devices it is impossible to say. Any company or surgeon who tells you otherwise is not being truthful. A direct head to head comparison has not been performed.
John R Miklos MD
Atlanta ~ Beverly Hills ~ Dubai
There are no head-to-head studies of Nu-V or any other technology versus anything
It's likely that comparisons between different technologies will not be done anytime soon. These machines treat similar problems and require a significant capital investment that most practices would not rather not duplicate. Patients, however, are free to try both and report their experiences.
ThermiVa vs Nu-V (or Femilift or Mona Lisa, etc)
Thanks for your question and if you saw my other answer already, you can guess where I stand on the issue. First off, let me say that I really don't know which one produces better results, since I have never done a head-to-head study (nor has anyone to my knowledge), but the biggest difference is that Nu-V is a laser, whereas ThermiVa is not - it is a radiofrequency (RF) energy device. As opposed to burning thousands of tiny holes in the vaginal walls, ThermiVa uses a gentle heat to warm the tissue to the therapeutic temperature of 42-45 degrees C. (compared to CO2 lasers, which have a laser temperature of 150-1000 degrees!). As a frame of reference, remember that water boils at 100 degrees C and normal body temperature is 36.5 degrees C. So, ThermiVa heats the entire surface of the vaginal tissue to 42-45 degrees and keeps it there for the duration of the treatment (approximately 7-10 minutes per "zone") as opposed to creating the thousands of tiny burn-holes I referred to earlier. Those holes, by the way, only cover a small fraction of the total surface area of the vaginal mucosa, whereas ThermiVa covers 100% of the surface area. What about the smoke? I also worry about the smoke plume that results from laser treatment of the vagina. In using CO2 lasers for destruction of vulvovaginal warts caused by Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), there have been enough reports of practitioners and OR personnel contracting oropharyngeal HPV (warts of the throat and nasal passages) that these systems all include smoke evacuators and all OR personnel are required to wear special masks that will filter out airborne viral particles, as required by OSHA. These new vaginal lasers seem to totally ignore this risk. Human papilloma virus is the most common STD in the world with an estimated 75% exposure rate among sexually active young adults in the US and overt infection in about 15%. Most people who have it don't have any symptoms, so the 15% is just those with symptoms. For practitioners treating with a laser device, it is inevitable that some of their patients will be HPV-positive and not even know it, so how do they protect themselves and their staff? HPV is associated with cervical cancer, vaginal cancer, vulvar cancer, penile cancer, and genital warts. Even if their results were identical (which I doubt), I would rather use ThermiVa, based on the facts I noted above, but my "hunch" is that ThermiVa will also produce superior results, merely based on the technology, but that's an educated guess and not based on objective research.
You might also like...
Nu-V vs. ThermiVa
Comparing two competing devices that have not been studied/compared against each other for effectiveness is not possible. Any information potentially given you supporting one being better/safer etc., in the absence of such a trial(s), would be anecdotal at best. Anecdotal does not equal science.