Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Introduction In Japan, the treatment options for erectile dysfunction (ED) are very restricted, if phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) are not effective. In this situation, low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LiESWT) has gained increased attention as a new option for ED treatment in Japan. Objective To clarify the efficacy of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy for patients with erectile dysfunction, compare the efficacy between two types of lithotripters (ED1000 focused type and Renova linear type), and detect factors indicative of therapeutic gain with the treatment. Methods This retrospective study included 76 patients (52.8 +/- 11.7 years) treated by ED1000 (12 times over 9 weeks) and 484 patients (52.5 +/- 11.6 years) treated by Renova (4 times over 4 weeks). Age, sexual symptoms scores, and blood examinations were assessed. Efficacy was judged by improvement of the scores and patient satisfaction and compared between patients at 1 month after treatment with the lithotripters. Independent factors influencing efficacy by Renova were also assessed. Results Sexual symptom scores were improved significantly by both lithotripters, although the changes in the scores did not differ significantly between them. Efficacy rate as judged by patient satisfaction was 65.8% with the ED1000 and 71.1% with Renova, also without significant difference. Among several factors including age, sexual symptoms scores, endocrinological factors, metabolic factors, and the rate of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use, only age was found to be an independent factor influencing the efficacy of Renova. Conclusions We clearly showed the high efficacy of both lithotripters. Although the efficacy rate did not differ between them, we speculated that the fewer treatment sessions needed with the Renova versus the ED1000 would be a great advantage for patients. We also suggest that Renova should be recommended for patients younger than 70 years of age. Disclosure No.
Md et al. (Fri,) studied this question.