Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiST) for erectile dysfunction: a randomized clinical trial assessing the impact of energy flux density (EFD) and frequency of sessions

Abstract

The impact of energy flux density (EFD) used on low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiST) for erectile dysfunction (ED) has not been explored. Our aim was to compare EFD 0.05 versus 0.10 mJ/mm2 regarding efficacy and safety of 12-treatment sessions when applied two or three times per week. Ninety-seven patients with vasculogenic ED, PDE5 inhibitors users were randomized into four groups, to receive 12 LiST sessions. Group A (n = 24) : two sessions per week, EFD 0.05 mJ/mm2; Group B (n = 24): three sessions per week, EFD 0.05 mJ/mm2; Group C (n = 24): two sessions per week, EFD 0.10 mJ/mm2; Group D (n = 25): three sessions per week, EFD 0.10 mJ/mm2. International Index for Erectile Function—Erectile Function domain (IIEF-EF), Minimally clinical important differences (MCID), sexual encounter profile, and triplex ultrasonography parameters were used to asses erectile function. Eighty-nine patients completed the 6-month follow-up (FU). All four groups improved in mean IIEF-EF score, average SEP3 “Yes” response rates at 6-month FU visit compared with baseline (p < 0.001). MCID at 6-month FU visit was achieved in 82.6%, 77.3%, 87%, and 81% in Groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. Mean PSV (cm/s) at baseline versus 3-month FU visit were 30.32 versus 34.67 for Group A, 30.02 versus 35.02 for Group B, 30.2 versus 36.02, for Group C, 29.43 versus 34.3 for Group D (p < 0.01). There were no statistical significant differences in the change of all outcome measures assessing erectile function between different sessions frequency. A tendency for better efficacy using EFD 0.10 mJ/mm2 was noticed, although it did not reach statistical significance. No treatment-related side‐effects were reported. This study lacks a sham-controlled arm. However, all patients were randomized to the four groups, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Moreover, arterial insufficiency was confirmed among all patients by penile triplex ultrasonography. Conclusively, patients may benefit equally when sessions are applied either two or three per week. An EFD of 0.10 mJ/mm2 could result in better outcomes, but further studies are needed to validate this observation.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Gruenwald I, Appel B, Vardi Y. Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy–a novel effective treatment for erectile dysfunction in severe ED patients who respond poorly to PDE5 inhibitor therapy. J Sex Med. 2012;9:259–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kitrey ND, Gruenwald I, Appel B, Shechter A, Massarwa O, Vardi Y. Penile low intensity shock wave treatment is able to shift PDE5i nonresponders to responders: a double-blind, sham controlled study. J Urol. 2016;195:1550–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Vardi Y, Appel B, Kilchevsky A, Gruenwald I. Does low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy have a physiological effect on erectile function? Short-term results of a randomized, double-blind, sham controlled study. J Urol. 2012;187:1769–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kalyvianakis D, Hatzichristou D. Low-intensity shockwave therapy improves hemodynamic parameters in patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction: a triplex ultrasonography-based sham-controlled trial. J Sex Med. 2017;14:891–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sokolakis I, Hatzichristodoulou G. Clinical studies on low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:177–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kalyvianakis D, Memmos E, Mykoniatis I, Kapoteli P, Memmos D, Hatzichristou D. Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction: a randomized clinical trial comparing 2 treatment protocols and the impact of repeating treatment. J Sex Med. 2018;15:334–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cappelleri JC, Rosen RC, Smith MD, Mishra A, Osterloh IH. Diagnostic evaluation of the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function. Urology. 1999;54:346–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Benson CB, Aruny JE, Vickers MA Jr. Correlation of duplex sonography with arteriography in patients with erectile dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160:71–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rosen RC, Allen KR, Ni X, Araujo AB. Minimal clinically important differences in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function scale. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1010–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Yafi FA, Jenkins L, Albersen M, Corona G, Isidori AM, Goldfarb S, et al. Erectile dysfunction. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 2016;2:16003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Young Academic Urologists Men’s Health G, Fode M, Hatzichristodoulou G, Serefoglu EC, Verze P, Albersen M. Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction: is the evidence strong enough? Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14:593–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hatzichristou D. Low-intensity extracorporeal shock waves therapy (LI-ESWT) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: where do we stand? Eur Urol. 2017;71:234–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Qiu X, Lin G, Xin Z, Ferretti L, Zhang H, Lue TF, et al. Effects of low-energy shockwave therapy on the erectile function and tissue of a diabetic rat model. J Sex Med. 2013;10:738–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Clavijo RI, Kohn TP, Kohn JR, Ramasamy R. Effects of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy on erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sex Med. 2017;14:27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schoofs E, Fode M, Capogrosso P, Albersen M. For the European association of urology young academic urologists men’s health G. Current guideline recommendations and analysis of evidence quality on low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:209–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Yang H, Seftel AD. Controversies in low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:239–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Vardi Y, Appel B, Jacob G, Massarwi O, Gruenwald I. Can low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy improve erectile function? A 6-month follow-up pilot study in patients with organic erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol. 2010;58:243–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Musicki B, Bella AJ, Bivalacqua TJ, Davies KP, DiSanto ME, Gonzalez-Cadavid NF, et al. Basic science evidence for the link between erectile dysfunction and cardiometabolic dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2015;12:2233–55.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cellek S, Cameron NE, Cotter MA, Muneer A. Pathophysiology of diabetic erectile dysfunction: potential contribution of vasa nervorum and advanced glycation endproducts. Int J Impot Res. 2013;25:1–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Echeverri Tirado LC, Ferrer JE, Herrera AM. Aging and erectile dysfunction. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Sokolakis I, Dimitriadis F, Teo P, Hatzichristodoulou G, Hatzichristou D, Giuliano F. The basic science behind low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction: a systematic scoping review of pre-clinical studies. J Sex Med. 2019;16:168–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Liu T, Shindel AW, Lin G, Lue TF. Cellular signaling pathways modulated by low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy. international journal of impotence research. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:170–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sokolakis I, Dimitriadis F, Psalla D, Karakiulakis G, Kalyvianakis D, Hatzichristou D. Effects of low-intensity shock wave therapy (LiST) on the erectile tissue of naturally aged rats. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:162–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gruenwald I, Spector A, Shultz T, Lischinsky D, Kimmel E. The beginning of a new era: treatment of erectile dysfunction by use of physical energies as an alternative to pharmaceuticals. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:155–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding

This study was made possible by an investigator-initiated research grant from Dornier MedTech Systems, GmbH (Wessling, Germany)

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Mykoniatis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalyvianakis, D., Mykoniatis, I., Memmos, E. et al. Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiST) for erectile dysfunction: a randomized clinical trial assessing the impact of energy flux density (EFD) and frequency of sessions. Int J Impot Res 32, 329–337 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0185-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links