Low-Intensity Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy in Vascular Disease and Erectile Dysfunction: Theory and Outcomes

Reviving intimacy: Penile rehabilitation strategies for men after prostate cancer treatment

There have been considerable advances in the field of penile rehabilitation for upwards of 90% of men adversely affected by either short-term or long-term erectile dysfunction after definitive prostate cancer treatment. Despite the evolving landscape of treatment modalities for penile rehabilitation, there is a lack of consensus in the urologic community on the best therapies due to the level of evidence and efficacies of the current and emerging offerings. This review of current and next-generation interventions provides a practical approach to the myriad of data to make a better-informed decision based on the pathophysiology and highest-quality evidence available.

Advances in physical diagnosis and treatment of male erectile dysfunction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most common male sexual dysfunction by far and the prevalence is increasing year after year. As technology advances, a wide range of physical diagnosis tools and therapeutic approaches have been developed for ED. At present, typical diagnostic devices include erection basic parameter measuring instrument, erection hardness quantitative analysis system, hemodynamic testing equipment, nocturnal erection measuring instrument, nerve conduction testing equipment, etc. At present, the most commonly used treatment for ED is pharmacological therapy represented by phosphodiesterase five inhibitors (PDE5i). As a first-line drug in clinical, PDE5i has outstanding clinical effects, but there are still some problems that deserve the attention of researchers, such as cost issues and some side effects, like visual disturbances, indigestion, myalgia, and back pain, as well as some non-response rates. Some patients have to consider alternative treatments. Moreover, the efficacy in some angiogenic EDs (diabetes and cardiovascular disease) has not met expectations, so there is still a need to continuously develop new methods that can improve hemodynamics. While drug have now been shown to be effective in treating ED, they only control symptoms and do not restore function in most cases. The increasing prevalence of ED also makes us more motivated to find safer, more effective, and simpler treatments. The exploration of relevant mechanisms can also serve as a springboard for the development of more clinically meaningful physiotherapy approaches. Therefore, people are currently devoted to studying the effects of physical therapy and physical therapy combined with drug therapy on ED. We reviewed the diagnosis of ED and related physical therapy methods, and explored the pathogenesis of ED. In our opinion, these treatment methods could help many ED patients recover fully or partially from ED within the next few decades.

An update on the current status and future prospects of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation treatment are standard options for localized prostate cancer. Even though nerve-sparing techniques have been increasingly utilized in RP, erectile dysfunction (ED) due to neuropraxia remains a frequent complication. Erectile function recovery rates after RP remain unsatisfactory, and many men still suffer despite the availability of various therapies.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to summarize the current treatments for post-RP-ED, assess the underlying pathological mechanisms, and emphasize promising therapeutic strategies based on the evidence from basic research.

METHOD

Evaluation and review of articles on the relevant topic published between 2010 and 2021, which are indexed and listed in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, intracavernosal and intraurethral injections, vacuum erection devices, pelvic muscle training, and surgical procedures are utilized for penile rehabilitation. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of erectogenic drugs in this setting are conflicting and far from being conclusive. The use of androgen deprivation therapy in certain scenarios after RP further exacerbates the already problematic situation and emphasizes the need for effective treatment strategies.

CONCLUSION

This article is a detailed overview focusing on the pathophysiology and mechanism of the nerve injury developed during RP and a compilation of various strategies to induce cavernous nerve regeneration to improve erectile function (EF). These strategies include stem cell therapy, gene therapy, growth factors, low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, immunophilins, and various pharmacological approaches that have induced improvements in EF in experimental models of cavernous nerve injury. Many of the mentioned strategies can improve EF following RP if transformed into clinically applicable safe, and effective techniques with reproducible outcomes.

Analysis of the Impact of Clinical Factors on Low-Intensity Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Predictive factors for the treatment success of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) are still under debate.

METHODS

Li-ESWT was performed in 50 patients suffering from ED by applying 3,000 shock waves once a week over a period of 6 weeks. Treatment success was defined as an increase in the International Index of Erectile Function 5 (IIEF-5) score by ≥5 points or an Erectile Hardness Score (EHS) of ≥3 points. IIEF-5 and EHS were measured at baseline and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Treatment success according to either the IIEF-5 score or EHS at any time of follow-up was achieved in 28 patients (56%). Twenty-five patients (50%) experienced an improvement during the first 3 months, which lasted for 6 months in 8 cases (16%). Three patients reported improved erectile function only after 6 months. When stratifying the cohort with regard to potential influencing factors, a significantly improved IIEF-5 score could be achieved in men with cardiovascular risk factors (p = 0.026) and in men with antihypertensive medication (p = 0.009). Men without cardiovascular risk factors showed no therapeutic benefit from Li-ESWT.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Li-ESWT is a valid but often short-lived treatment option for ED, especially in men with cardiovascular risk factors or controlled hypertension. Future studies should assess the feasibility and safety of repeated applications of Li-ESWT.

Bibliometric and visualization analysis of literature relating to diabetic erectile dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic erectile dysfunction (DMED) refers to erectile dysfunction secondary to diabetes. Erectile dysfunction is characterized by a persistent inability to achieve and maintain an erection sufficient to permit satisfactory sexual activity.

METHODS

Based on the Web of Science core collection database, we firstly analyzed the quantity and quality of publications in the field of DMED, secondly profiled the publishing groups in terms of country, institution, author's publication and cooperation network, and finally sorted out and summarized the hot topics of research.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2022, a total of 1,403 articles relating to this topic were published in 359 journals. They represent the global research status, potential hotspots, and future research directions. The number of DMED-related publications and citations has steadily increased over the few past decades. Academic institutions from Europe and the United States have played a leading role in DMED research. The country, institution, journal, and author with the most publications were the United States (294), INHA University (39), the Journal of Sexual Medicine (156), and Ryu, Ji-Kan (29), respectively. The most common keywords were erectile dysfunction (796), men (256), diabetes (254), diabetes mellitus (239), prevalence (180), corpus cavernosum (171), dysfunction (155), mellitus (154), nitric-oxide synthase (153), and expression (140). The main keyword-based research topics and hotspots in the DMED field were oral sildenafil, smooth muscle relaxation, nitric oxide synthase, gene therapy, metabolic syndrome, cavernous nerve injury, stem cell, and penile prosthesis.

DISCUSSION

The terms oral sildenafil, smooth muscle relaxation, nitric oxide synthase, gene therapy, metabolic syndrome, cavernous nerve injury, stem cell, and penile prosthesis will be at the forefront of DMED-related research.

Pharmaceutical and Energy-Based Management of Sexual Problems in Women

This article summarizes and critiques the evidence for use of available pharmacotherapies (vasoactive, psychoactive, and hormonal medications) and energy-based therapies (laser, radiofrequency, shockwave, and neurostimulation) for treatment of female sexual dysfunction. The enthusiasm with which energy-based treatments for sexual dysfunction have been adopted is disproportionate to the amount of data currently available to support their clinical use. Pharmacotherapy for female sexual dysfunction has considerably more research evidence to justify its use. Patients must be empowered to make an informed, autonomous determination as to whether the risk/reward ratio favors the use of pharmacotherapy, energy-based therapy, or some other treatment intervention.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus on-demand sildenafil for erectile dysfunction

Background

Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (Li-ESWT) is an effective therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) but is not widely recognized and applied. This prospective nonrandomized study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Li-ESWT.

Methods

After a 4-week washout period of past ED treatment, patients entered one of 2 active treatment groups, either 9-week Li-ESWT or 100 mg on-demand sildenafil. Patients were evaluated in the first- and third-month following initiation of treatment. The Li-ESWT protocol comprised 2 sessions per week for 3 weeks, which were repeated after a 3-week interval. Patients in the drug group took self-administered sildenafil at a dose of 100 mg before intercourse. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of Li-ESWT measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) scores. Other measurements included erection hardness score (EHS) and Self-Esteem And Relationship (SEAR).

Results

A total of 78 participants completed the study (46 in the Li-ESWT group and 32 in the sildenafil group). Overall, 26.9% of the participants (21/78) included were psychogenic. In the third month, the outcome measured by IIEF-5 was 21.52 in the Li-ESWT group and 21.26 in the sildenafil group (P>0.05). Proportion of improvement defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria was 52.2% in the Li-ESWT group and 59.4% in the sildenafil group (P>0.05). The EHS and SEAR improvement was similar in the 2 groups (P>0.05 at baseline and third month). Transient and mild adverse events were observed in both groups.

Conclusions

In our study, a similar treatment efficacy and safety was shown by the application of Li-ESWT as on demand sildenafil.

Penile low intensity shock wave treatment for PDE5I refractory erectile dysfunction: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Over the last decade, penile low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) has emerged as a promising alternative for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). The aim of this trial is to assess the effect of electromagnetic LI-ESWT on the erectile function of vascular phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) refractory ED patients.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study. 76 patients with vascular PDE5I-refractory ED completed the study. 40 men were treated with LI-ESWT (1 session/week for 4 weeks, 5000 shocks/session, 0.09 mJ/mm² energy density) and 36 were treated with a sham probe. Baseline and post-treatment (1, 3 and 6 months) evaluations were performed using validated erectile function questionnaires (IIEF-EF, EHS, SEP2, SEP3 and GAQ1). The groups were compared using Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and chi-squared tests, with results considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

At the 3-month follow-up, median change in IIEF-EF score for active and sham groups was 3.5 (IQR 0-10) and - 0.5 (IQR - 11 to 1), respectively (p < 0.05). Six months after treatment, 52.5% of patients (21/40) in the active group and 27.8% of patients (10/36) in the sham group presented an EHS > 2 (p < 0.05). At the same evaluation, 40.0% (16/40) and 13.9% (5/36) of patients had positive answers to GAQ-1, in the treated and sham groups, respectively (p < 0.05). No adverse events were observed during the study.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that penile electromagnetic shockwave therapy may improve erectile function, to a modest extent, on certain patients that do not respond to PDE5I; making it an alternative for vascular ED patients that reject more invasive therapies.

Review of the Current Status of Low Intensity Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (Li-ESWT) in Erectile Dysfunction (ED), Peyronie's Disease (PD), and Sexual Rehabilitation After Radical Prostatectomy With Special Focus on Technical Aspects of the Different Marketed ESWT Devices Including Personal Experiences in 350 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Although the literature of the positive effects of penile low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy is meanwhile substantial, there are substantial differences regarding both the sources of energies and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) devices.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview on the energy range and energy differences of the 6 currently marketed ESWT devices along with personal ESWT experiences in 350 patients.

METHODS

This review includes all published preclinical and clinical penile ESWT studies with evaluation of the technical differences of the 6 ESWT devices and the personal experiences with these 6 devices in ED and PD. The main outcomes measures were success rates in ED (International Index of Erectile Function-erectile function change, conversion of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors non-responders) and PD (change in deviation and plaque size), differences of used sources of energy, and energy flux densities (EFDs).

RESULTS

3 different sources of energies are used, that is electromagnetic, electrohydraulic, and piezoelectric .The devices markedly distinguish in the available spectrum of the EFD ranging between 0.09 and 0.55 mJ/mm². In terms of the biological effects, the relevant energy parameters are -6 dB and the 5 MPa focus, which differ substantially between the ESWT devices. In addition, a great variability in the treatment protocols and applied energy is obvious. The preliminary own experiences with low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy in 160 ED non-responders and 190 patients with PD with success rates of 45% and 47%, respectively, are reported.

CONCLUSION

Positive results were published with all 6 ESWT devices in question in patients with organic ED but with huge differences regarding the EFD and the total energies applied. There is growing evidence that concentrated treatment protocols and increasing energies may yield better results. In this context, it may be argued that at least some of the published studies were markedly underpowered .Owing to the paucity of published studies, the literature of the effects of ESWT in PD and for penile rehabilitation after pelvic surgery is currently not conclusive. Porst H. Review of the Current Status of Low Intensity Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (Li-ESWT) in Erectile Dysfunction (ED), Peyronie's Disease (PD), and Sexual Rehabilitation After Radical Prostatectomy With Special Focus on Technical Aspects of the Different Marketed ESWT Devices Including Personal Experiences in 350 Patients. Sex Med 2021;9:93-122.

Novel Emerging Therapies for Erectile Dysfunction

Currently, several treatments exist for the improvement of erectile dysfunction (ED). These include medical therapies such as phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is), invasive methods such as intracavernosal injection therapy of vaso-active substances, vacuum erection devices, and penile prosthesis implants. However, the percentage of patients that are unresponsive to available treatments and who drop out from treatments remains high. Current evidence reveals that the pathogenesis of ED is related to multiple factors including underlying comorbidities, previous surgery, and psychological factors. Diverse approaches using novel molecular pathways or new technologies have been tested as potential therapeutic options for difficultto-treat ED populations. Melanocortin receptor agonist, a centrally acting agent, showed promising results by initiating erection without sexual stimulation in non-responders to PDE5-Is. Recent clinical and pre-clinical studies using human tissues suggested that new peripherally acting agents including the Max-K channel activator, guanylate cyclase activator, and nitric oxide donor could be potential therapies either as a monotherapy or in combination with PDE5-Is in ED patients. According to several clinical trials, regeneration therapy using stem cells showed favorable data in men with diabetic or post-prostatectomy ED. Low-intensity shock wave therapy also demonstrated promising results in patients with vasculogenic ED. There are growing evidences which suggest the efficacy of these emerging therapies, though most of the therapies still need to be validated by well-designed clinical trials. It is expected that, should their long-term safety and efficacy be proven, the emerging treatments can meet the needs of patients hitherto unresponsive to or unsatisfied by current therapies for ED.

Erectile Dysfunction Treatment Using Focused Linear Low-Intensity Extracorporeal Shockwaves: Single-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (Li-ESWT) is a new treatment modality for erectile dysfunction (ED). Our aim was to evaluate the treatment outcome of Li-ESWT for ED in single-blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Sixty patients were randomized into 2 age-matched groups: Group A - treatment and Group B - placebo. Treatment consisted of 4 sessions on the PiezoWave2 unit (R. Wolf and ELvation Medical). Effectiveness was assessed according to the International Index of Erectile Function 5 (IIEF-5), Erectile Hardness Score (EHS), questions 2 and 3 of the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP 2, SEP 3), and Global Assessment Question (GAQ) scores at baseline and 4 and 12 weeks after treatment. We evaluated patient's and partner's subjective satisfaction.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference between the groups was found at 4 and 12 weeks after treatment with regard to the quality of erection as measured by the IIEF-5 (p = 0.049 and p < 0.001, respectively), the EHS after week 12 (p < 0.001), an increase in the EHS after 4 and 12 weeks (p = 0.030 and p < 0.001, respectively), after 12 weeks in GAQ (p < 0.001), SEP 2 (p = 0.05), SEP 3 (p < 0.001), and patient's satisfaction (p < 0.001) and partner's satisfaction (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The randomized single-blind study confirms that Li-ESWT significantly improves erectile function.

Long-term effectiveness and predictors of success of low-intensity shockwave therapy in phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors non-responders

Objective: To evaluate the long-term (18 months) effectiveness, safety, and factors that may predict the success of low-intensity shockwave lithotripsy (Li-SWT) in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) who fail to respond to oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i).

Patients and Methods: This prospective study included 52 patients with ED of vascular origin who failed to respond to oral PDE5i. The International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain (IIEF-EF) and Erection Hardness Score (EHS) questionnaires were used to evaluate EF. Patients under went two Li-SWT treatment sessions per week for 3 weeks, followed by a 3-week treatment-free period, and the cycle was repeated until each patient received 12 treatment sessions. Patients were followed-up after Li-SWT at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months.

Results: At the 18-month follow-up, 33 patients (63.5%) were able to achieve an erection sufficient for penetration with or without PDE5i (22 were maintained on oral PDE5i). The remaining 19 patients (36.5%) had a poor response to Li-SWT and oral PDE5i. The initial response showed some decline in 50% of the initial responders. Younger men (aged <45 years), short ED duration (<2 years), and moderate ED severity responded better to Li-SWT. There were no adverse side-effects.

Conclusion: In the present study, Li-SWT was a safe and effective treatment in 63.5% of men with ED who failed to respond to oral PDE5i. Factors such as age (<45 years), ED duration (<2 years), and ED severity can predict treatment outcome in such patients.

Abbreviations: CDU: colour Doppler ultrasonography; ED: erectile dysfunction; EDV: end-diastolic velocity; EF: erectile function; EHS: Erection Hardness Score; FU: follow-up; IIEF-EF: International Index of Erectile Function-EF domain; Li-SWT: low-intensity shockwave lithotripsy; PDE5i: phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors; PGE1: prostaglandin E1; PSV: peak systolic velocity; RI: resistive index; VOD: veno-occlusive dysfunction

Low-Intensity Shock Wave Therapy in Sexual Medicine-Clinical Recommendations from the European Society of Sexual Medicine (ESSM)

INTRODUCTION

Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) has been investigated for the treatment of uroandrological disorders including erectile dysfunction (ED), Peyronie's disease (PD) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) with controversial findings.

AIM

To review the evidence on LISWT for ED, PD, and CP/CPPS and provide clinical recommendations on behalf of the European Society of Sexual Medicine.

METHODS

Medline and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and open-label prospective or retrospective studies investigating the effect of LISWT on ED, PD, or CP/CPPS.

OUTCOMES

The panel provided statements on clinically relevant questions concerning LISWT: (i) treatment efficacy, (ii) treatment protocol, (iii) clinical indications, and (iv) safety. The level of evidence was provided according to the Oxford 2011 criteria and graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendations.

RESULTS

11 RCTs and 5 meta-analyses investigated LISWT for ED. RCTs provided controversial results on the efficacy of LISWT and were affected by high heterogeneity and the small number of patients included. Pooled-data analysis showed an overall positive effect in terms of erectile function improvement but reported small estimates and included a largely heterogeneous cohort of patients. 4 RCTs and 1 meta-analysis assessed LISWT for PD. All trials showed positive findings in terms of pain relief but no effect on penile curvature and plaque size. Inclusion criteria vary widely among studies, and further investigation is needed. 5 RCTs investigated LISWT for CP/CPPS. Data showed a possible effect on pain relief, although there is no evidence supporting that pain relief was maintained or any improvement in pain over time.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

LISWT needs to be further investigated in the context of sexual medicine and is almost but not yet ready for clinical practice.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

All studies have been evaluated by a panel of experts providing recommendations for clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

LISWT is a safe and well-tolerated procedure but its efficacy for the treatment of ED is doubtful and deserves more investigation. Patients reporting pain associated with PD may benefit from LISWT, although no effect is expected on disease progression. LISWT is not a primary treatment for CP/CPPS, but it may be considered as an option to relieve pain. Capogrosso P, Frey A, Jensen CFS, et al. Low-Intensity Shock Wave Therapy in Sexual Medicine-Clinical Recommendations from the European Society of Sexual Medicine (ESSM). J Sex Med 2019;16:1490-1505.

An update on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic somatic and autonomic neuropathy

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is the most common chronic complication of diabetes. It poses a significant challenge for clinicians as it is often diagnosed late when patients present with advanced consequences such as foot ulceration. Autonomic neuropathy (AN) is also a frequent and under-diagnosed complication unless it is overtly symptomatic. Both somatic and autonomic neuropathy are associated with increased mortality. Multiple clinical trials have failed because of limited efficacy in advanced disease, inadequate trial duration, lack of effective surrogate end-points and a lack of deterioration in the placebo arm in clinical trials of DPN. Multifactorial risk factor reduction, targeting glycaemia, blood pressure and lipids can reduce the progression of DPN and AN. Treatment of painful DPN reduces painful symptoms by about 50% at best, but there is limited efficacy with any single agent. This reflects the complex aetiology of painful DPN and argues for improved clinical phenotyping with the use of targeted therapy, taking into account co-morbid conditions such as anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance.

Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: a critical review

Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) to the penis has recently emerged as novel therapeutic option in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Randomized-controlled studies investigating the effect of this new treatment modality revealed promising results in men with vasculogenic ED. However, the efficacy of LI-ESWT in men who develop ED following radical prostatectomy (RP) remains obscure due to the exclusion of this group in nearly all clinical trials. In this review, the authors synthesize the findings from available preclinical and clinical studies that examine the potential utility of LI-ESWT in men with post-RP ED.

Low Intensity Shock Wave Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction-How Long Does the Effect Last?

PURPOSE

We studied the long-term efficacy of penile low intensity shock wave treatment 2 years after an initially successful outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men with a successful outcome of low intensity shock wave treatment according to the minimal clinically important difference on the IIEF-EF (International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function) questionnaire were followed at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Efficacy was assessed by the IIEF-EF. Failure during followup was defined as a decrease in the IIEF-EF below the minimal clinically important difference.

RESULTS

We screened a total of 156 patients who underwent the same treatment protocol but participated in different clinical studies. At 1 month treatment was successful in 99 patients (63.5%). During followup a gradual decrease in efficacy was observed. The beneficial effect was maintained after 2 years in only 53 of the 99 patients (53.5%) in whom success was initially achieved. Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were prone to earlier failure than those with nonsevere erectile dysfunction. During the 2-year followup the effect of low intensity shock wave treatment was lost in all patients with diabetes who had severe erectile dysfunction at baseline. On the other hand, patients with milder forms of erectile dysfunction without diabetes had a 76% chance that the beneficial effect of low intensity shock wave treatment would be preserved after 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Low intensity shock wave treatment is effective in the short term but treatment efficacy was maintained after 2 years in only half of the patients. In patients with milder forms of erectile dysfunction the beneficial effect is more likely to be preserved.

Comparison of the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and a vacuum erectile device on penile erectile dysfunction: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized clinical trial (October 2012-December 2013) compared extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and a vacuum erectile device (VED) for management of erectile dysfunction (ED).

METHODS

Consecutive Chinese patients (20-55 years) with ED, abnormal nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity (NPTR), and international index of erectile function-5 items (IIEF-5) score <22 were randomized to receive ESWT or VED (twice weekly, 4 weeks). Primary outcomes were treatment efficacy and success rate 4 weeks after completion of therapy. Secondary outcomes included changes in IIEF-5 score, sex encounter profile (SEP) score, erection hardness score (EHS) and NPTR assessments 4 weeks post-therapy. All enrolled patients (n = 30 per group) completed the study. At baseline, age, IIEF-5 score, SEP score, EHS, and NPTR assessments were similar between groups.

RESULTS

Four weeks post-therapy, IIEF-5 score increased in the ESWT (15.03 ± 3.00 vs. 11.60 ± 2.28) and VED (15.10 ± 3.06 vs. 11.53 ± 2.27) groups, as did SEP score, EHS, and NPTR measures (all P < .05). Efficacy in the ESWT and VED groups was excellent in 10% and 13.3%, respectively, and moderate in 63.3% and 53.3%, respectively. Treatment success rate in the ESWT and VED groups was 73.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

VED use and ESWT have comparable efficacies in the treatment of ED in Chinese patients.

Twelve-Month Efficacy and Safety of Low-Intensity Shockwave Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction in Patients Who Do Not Respond to Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors

Introduction

Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) has recently emerged as a promising method in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED).

Aim

To assess the long-term results of the effectiveness and safety of LISWT in patients with ED who are non-responders to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) treatment.

Methods

This open-label, longitudinal, and observational study investigated an uncontrolled population of 50 consecutive patients whose ED was unresponsive to PDE5i treatment. Patients were treated with a four-session LISWT protocol. During active treatment and follow-up, all patients remained on their regular high on-demand or once-daily PDE5i dosing schedules.

Main Outcome Measures

Effectiveness was assessed according to the International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain, questions 2 and 3 of the Sexual Encounter Profile, Erection Hardness Scale, and Global Assessment Question scores at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after treatment. Patients were considered responders whenever they showed improvement in erection parameters in all four assessments and responded positively to the Global Assessment Question. Adverse events were recorded. Statistical variables were applied and findings were considered statistically significant at a P value less than < .05.

Results

Eighty percent (mean age = 64.8 years) completed the 12-month follow-up. Positive response rates were 60% of available subjects at the end of the study and 48% of the intent-to-treat population. After the 12-month follow-up, 91.7% of responders maintained their responses. No patient reported treatment-related adverse events.

Conclusion

LISWT in patients with ED unresponsive to PDE5i treatment was effective and safe in 60% of patients treated. The efficacy response was maintained for 12 months in most patients.

Penile Low Intensity Shock Wave Treatment is Able to Shift PDE5i Nonresponders to Responders: A Double-Blind, Sham Controlled Study

PURPOSE

We performed sham controlled evaluation of penile low intensity shock wave treatment effect in patients unable to achieve sexual intercourse using PDE5i (phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham controlled study was done in patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction who stopped using PDE5i due to no efficacy. All patients had an erection hardness score of 2 or less with PDE5i. A total of 58 patients were randomized, including 37 treated with low intensity shock waves (12 sessions of 1,500 pulses of 0.09 mJ/mm(2) at 120 shock waves per minute) and 18 treated with a sham probe. In the sham group 16 patients underwent low intensity shock wave treatment 1 month after sham treatment. All patients were evaluated at baseline and 1 month after the end of treatment using validated erectile dysfunction questionnaires and the flow mediated dilatation technique for penile endothelial function. Erectile function was evaluated while patients were receiving PDE5i.

RESULTS

In the low intensity shock wave treatment group and the sham group 54.1% and 0% of patients, respectively, achieved erection hard enough for vaginal penetration, that is an EHS (Erection Hardness Score) of 3 (p <0.0001). According to changes in the IIEF-EF (International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function) score treatment was effective in 40.5% of men who received low intensity shock wave treatment but in none in the sham group (p = 0.001). Of patients treated with shock waves after sham treatment 56.3% achieved erection hard enough for penetration (p <0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Low intensity shock wave treatment is effective even in patients with severe erectile dysfunction who are PDE5i nonresponders. After treatment about half of them were able to achieve erection hard enough for penetration with PDE5i. Longer followup is needed to establish the place of low intensity shock wave treatment in these challenging cases.

Penile low-intensity shock wave therapy: a promising novel modality for erectile dysfunction

Penile extracorporeal low-intensity shock wave therapy (LIST) to the penis has recently emerged as a novel and promising modality in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). LIST has angiogenic properties and stimulates neovascularization. If applied to the corpora cavernosa, LIST can improve penile blood flow and endothelial function. In a series of clinical trials, including randomized double-blind sham-controlled studies, LIST has been shown to have a substantial effect on penile hemodynamics and erectile function in patients with vasculogenic ED. LIST is effective in patients who are responsive to phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) and can also convert PDE5i nonresponders to responders. The response to LIST wanes gradually over time, and after 2 years, about half of the patients maintain their function. Extensive research is needed to understand the effect of LIST on erectile tissue, to modify the treatment protocol to maximize its outcomes, and to identify the patients who will benefit the most from this treatment.