Surgical Technology International

40th Anniversary Edition


Contains 53 peer-reviewed articles featuring the latest advances in surgical techniques and technologies. 412 Pages.


May 2022 - ISSN:1090-3941


Link to PubMed

1 year Institutional Subscription 

both electronic and print versions



Shockwave Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction: Which Gives the Best Results? A Retrospective National, Multi-Institutional Comparative Study of Different Shockwave Technologies
Jamil Ghahhari, MD, Alessio Faieta, Urological Nurse, Luca Cindolo, MD, PhD, Department of Urology, Private Hospital Villa Stuart, Rome, Italy , Cosimo De Nunzio, MD, Assistant Professor of Urology, Riccardo Lombardo, MD, Department of Urology, "Sant'Andrea" Hospital, "La Sapienza" University, Rome, Italy, Riccardo Ferrari, MD, Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy, Giovanni Ferrari, MD, Professor of Urology, Lorenzo Gatti, MD, Nicola Ghidini, MD, Rosario Calarco Piazza, MD, Department of Urology, Hesperia Hospital, CUrE Group, Modena, Italy




Background: Low-intensity shockwave therapy (Li-SWT) is a promising option for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Many devices with different characteristics in terms of generators, shockwaves, set-up parameters and procedure protocols are commercially available. In this report, we present our experience with the main shockwave technologies currently in use in clinical practice for ED treatment. Methods: A retrospective national, multi-institutional study was performed to compare the effects of different shockwave technologies in ED patients.
All of the subjects underwent 8 consecutive weekly physical treatments with SWT under either a focused or non-focused regimen: 3,000 shocks per session at 0.09 mJ/mm2 and 10,000 shocks per session at 15 Hz and 90 mJ, respectively.
Efficacy was evaluated by comparing pre- and post-treatment Sexual Health Inventory in Men (SHIM) scores, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and Erection Hardness Score (EHS).
Possible relationships between type of shockwave generator, source, morphology and type of ED were investigated.
Results: A total of 94 men were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline clinical characteristics or demographics. The mean (SD) increase in the scores from questionnaires evaluated at 8 weeks was clinically and statistically significant, with overall improvements of +5.49, +5.47 and +1.18 (p<0.0001) in the IIEF-5, SHIM, and EHS scores, respectively. The increases in these scores were evaluated by a multiple regression analysis, in relation to the shockwave generator, type of ED, shockwave source and morphology, but none of the factors examined predicted improvement. No side effects were reported with any device.
Conclusions: SWT is a clinically effective and safe treatment for ED that is independent of the generator type, source, shockwave morphology emitted, type of ED and perhaps treatment protocol.


Order Digital ePrint:

PDF Format - $115.00


100 ePrints - $495.00


1 Year Subscription

including this article:

Online PDF - $399.00