Porst Hartmut
European Institute for Sexual Health (EISH), Hamburg, Germany.
Sex Med Rev. 2021 Jan;9(1):93-122. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.01.006. Epub 2020 Jun 2.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
尽管关于阴茎低强度体外冲击波疗法积极效果的文献数量可观,但在能量来源和体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)设备方面仍存在显著差异。
概述目前市场上6种ESWT设备的能量范围和能量差异,以及350例患者的个人ESWT治疗经验。
本综述纳入了所有已发表的阴茎ESWT临床前和临床研究,评估了6种ESWT设备的技术差异以及在勃起功能障碍(ED)和佩罗尼氏病(PD)中使用这6种设备的个人经验。主要观察指标为ED的成功率(国际勃起功能指数-勃起功能变化、5型磷酸二酯酶抑制剂无反应者的转化率)和PD的成功率(弯曲度和斑块大小的变化)、所用能量来源的差异以及能量通量密度(EFDs)。
使用了3种不同的能量来源,即电磁、液电和压电。这些设备在可用的EFD光谱上有显著差异,范围在0.09至0.55 mJ/mm²之间。就生物学效应而言,相关能量参数为-6 dB和5 MPa焦点值,这在ESWT设备之间有很大差异。此外,治疗方案和应用能量存在很大差异。报告了对160例ED无反应者和190例PD患者进行低强度体外冲击波疗法的初步个人经验,成功率分别为45%和47%。
所有6种相关ESWT设备在器质性ED患者中均发表了积极结果,但在EFD和应用的总能量方面存在巨大差异。越来越多的证据表明,集中治疗方案和增加能量可能会产生更好的结果。在这种情况下,可以认为至少一些已发表的研究的效力明显不足。由于已发表的研究较少,目前ESWT对PD的影响以及盆腔手术后阴茎康复的文献尚无定论。波斯特H. 低强度体外冲击波疗法(Li-ESWT)在勃起功能障碍(ED)、佩罗尼氏病(PD)和根治性前列腺切除术后性康复中的现状综述,特别关注不同市售ESWT设备的技术方面,包括350例患者的个人经验。性医学2021;9:93-122。