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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy among urologist practitioners: how the opinion of urologists changed between 2016 and 2019

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 34, pages 317–319 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Two decades have passed since the phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors (PDE5Is) revolutionized the management of erectile dysfunction (ED). However, the restoration of natural erection remains the ultimate goal of any treatment. During the last decade low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT) emerged showing in some cases very promising results, with a range of improvement in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores similar to the published data on PDE5Is clinical trials [1]. Furthermore, Li-ESWT seems to improve erectile function by inducing neoangiogenesis and reversing pathologic processes in erectile tissue and thus partially by restoring of natural erection [2, 3]. Such data were initially enthusiastically accepted by the scientific community, as ideally, ED therapy should be simple, non-invasive and non-painful with a high success rate and few minor side effects. The following years a research marathon began regarding the effectiveness of Li-ESWT for ED. Most of the studies showed acceptable effectiveness of Li-ESWT in patients with vasculogenic ED, PDE5I responders and non-responders [4]. However, some well-designed randomized sham-controlled trials (RCT) failed to show this effectiveness [4]. This confused both the scientific community and the office urologists, and we also see this confusion to recent published guidelines and recommendations from scientific societies [5, 6]. Therefore, we could not really guess how the Li-ESWT was accepted in everyday clinical practise.

In this recent article in International Journal of Impotence research, the authors, members of the European Association of Urology—Young Academic Urologists (EAU-YAU) group on men’s health, investigated the opinion of urologists on Li-ESWT [7]. The survey was conducted during the European Association of Urology (EAU) Section of Andrological Urology (ESAU) annual meeting in Prague, from 31st October to 1st November 2019. The results were compared with a similar survey conducted in 2016 [8]. The study concluded that the awareness and the clinical application of Li-ESWT in men with ED have increased, despite the lack of robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of this treatment [7]. This is a very interesting conclusion since it is somehow self-conflicting. Especially in the era of evidence-based medicine, it is rather unusual to observe medical practitioners increasing the application of a medical treatment that it is not supported by robust clinical evidence. This could be partially attributed to the confusing fact that even between international scientific societies there is not full agreement in terms of recommendations on Li-ESWT in ED patients [9]. In 2019 the European Society of Sexual Medicine (ESSM) published clinical recommendations for Li-ESWT in the context of ED stating that unambiguous evidence on the efficacy of Li-SWT is still currently lacking and evidence quality is low due to the small number of patients included in randomized clinical trials, the heterogeneity of treatment protocols and the controversial findings [6]. On the other hand, the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU) on sexual and reproductive health recommend the use of Li-ESWT in patients with mild vasculogenic ED as an alternative first-line therapy in well-informed patients who do not wish or are not suitable for oral vasoactive therapy or desire a curable option [10]. Furthermore, they recommend the use of Li-ESWT in vasculogenic ED patients who are poor responders to PDE5Is [10]. Taking it altogether we can say that EAU Guidelines are recommending the use of Li-SWT as a first-line therapy alternative to PDE5is in fully counseled patients. The previous version of the guideline was limiting the use of this treatment in mild organic ED patients or poor responders to PDE5 inhibitors [5]. We can summarize that both societies address the subject correctly, with EAU Guidelines moving towards everyday clinical practice, while ESSM recommendation addresses more the scientific point of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. 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 

  2. 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 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. Gul M, Carvajal A, Serefoglu EC, Minhas S, Salonia A. European association of urology guidelines for sexual and reproductive health 2020: what is new? Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:477–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Capogrosso P, Frey A, Jensen CFS, Rastrelli G, Russo GI, Torremade J, et al. Low-intensity shock wave therapy in sexual medicine-clinical recommendations from the European Society of Sexual Medicine (ESSM). J Sex Med. 2019;16:1490–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Capogrosso P, Di Mauro M, Fode M, Lowenstein L, Reisman Y, Dehò F, et al. Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy among urologist practitioners: how the opinion of urologists changed between 2016 and 2019. Int J Imp Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-00347-x. [Epub ahead of print].

  8. Fode M, Lowenstein L, Reisman Y. Low-Intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy in sexual medicine: a questionnaire-based assessment of knowledge, clinical practice patterns, and attitudes in sexual medicine practitioners. Sex Med. 2017;5:e94–e98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoofs E, Fode M, Capogrosso P, Albersen M. 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 

  10. Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Carvalho J, Corona G, Jones T, Kadioglu A, et al. EAU Guidelines on sexual and reproductive health. Eur Assoc Urol Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020.

  11. Russo GI, di Mauro M, Cocci A, Cacciamani G, Cimino S, Serefoglu EC, et al. Consulting “Dr Google” for sexual dysfunction: a contemporary worldwide trend analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:455–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Palmieri A, Arcaniolo D, Palumbo F, Verze P, Liguori G, Mondaini N, et al. Low intensity shockwave therapy in combination with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors is an effective and safe treatment option in patients with vasculogenic ED who are PDE5i non-responders: a multicenter single-arm clinical trial. Int J Imp Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0332-7. [Epub ahead of print].

  13. Zou ZJ, Liang JY, Liu ZH, Gao R, Lu YP. Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a review of preclinical studies. Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Usta MF, Gabrielson AT, Bivalacqua TJ. Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: a critical review. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31:231–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany

    Ioannis Sokolakis & Georgios Hatzichristodoulou

Authors
  1. Ioannis Sokolakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgios Hatzichristodoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Sokolakis.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sokolakis, I., Hatzichristodoulou, G. Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy among urologist practitioners: how the opinion of urologists changed between 2016 and 2019. Int J Impot Res 34, 317–319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-00394-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-00394-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links