Wellness
August 25, 2026

O-Shot Treatment for Women: What the Evidence Says

The O-Shot treatment is a brand name for injecting platelet-rich plasma (PRP), prepared from your own blood, into the vaginal and clitoral area. It is marketed for sexual function and for urine leakage. Early studies report improvements on questionnaires, but a 2023 systematic review rated the evidence as low and concluded that firm conclusions about whether it works cannot yet be drawn.

This guide explains what the O-Shot treatment involves, what that review found, the side effects reported so far, and what to ask before deciding.

What is the O-Shot treatment?

PRP is made by taking a small sample of your blood and spinning it to concentrate the platelets. In an O-Shot treatment, that concentrate is injected into the front wall of the vagina and, in some protocols, near the clitoris. The idea is that growth factors in platelets may support tissue repair.

It is offered for two main concerns:

female sexual dysfunction, which includes problems with arousal, orgasm and pain during sex;
stress urinary incontinence, which is leakage when coughing, sneezing or exercising.

What the research says about the O-Shot treatment

The best summary so far is a systematic review published in Biomedicines in 2023. It gathered the available studies of PRP injections for these two conditions, covering 327 women in total.

Its findings were mixed:

Reported improvement. In most studies, women’s scores on sexual function and incontinence questionnaires improved after PRP.
Low-quality evidence. The authors rated the level of evidence as low. Studies were small, used different methods and doses, and followed women for 12 months at most. They wrote that “safe conclusions about the efficacy of PRP cannot be drawn.”
One randomised trial. The only randomised trial compared PRP with a midurethral sling, a standard operation for stress incontinence, in 20 women. Three months later the sling group had significantly better scores.

The review’s own conclusion is that PRP “may be considered for clinical research” for sexual dysfunction, and that high-quality randomised trials are still needed.

Side effects reported

In the review, fewer than 1% of women who received PRP had side effects, and none were classed as serious. Those reported were:

urinary retention in one woman, who needed to use a catheter herself for several days;
unwanted, persistent sexual arousal in two women.

All resolved without further treatment. Only two of the studies recorded side effects at all, so the true rate is uncertain. As with any injection, soreness and bruising at the injection site are possible.

What an O-Shot treatment involves

There is no single agreed protocol. In the studies reviewed, the most common approach for sexual dysfunction was 2 mL of PRP injected into the front vaginal wall once a month for three months. For stress incontinence, larger volumes were injected around the urethra.

Because methods differ between clinics, ask exactly what yours does: how the PRP is prepared, where it is injected, how many sessions are planned, and what numbing is used.

Other options to discuss

Both conditions have established treatments. For stress urinary incontinence, the randomised trial above used a midurethral sling as the standard comparison. For sexual concerns, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes that “medication, physical therapy, counseling, and many self-help options are available.”

A proper assessment comes first, because leakage and pain with sex have several possible causes.

Questions to ask before an O-Shot treatment

What is causing my symptoms, and what are the established treatments?
What evidence supports PRP for my particular concern?
How many of these procedures have you performed, and what follow-up do you offer?
What will you do if I have a side effect such as difficulty passing urine?
How will we judge whether it has worked?

Frequently asked questions

Does the O-Shot treatment work?

Small studies report improvement, but the 2023 review rated the evidence as low and said firm conclusions cannot be drawn. It is best understood as a treatment still under study.