Noam D Kitrey1, Yoram Vardi2, Boaz Appel3, Arik Shechter4, Omar Massarwi3, Yasmin Abu-Ghanem5, Ilan Gruenwald4. 1. Urology Department, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Electronic address: nkitrey@gmail.com. 2. Urology Department, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel; Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel. 3. Neurourology Unit, Rambam Healthcare Campus, Haifa, Israel. 4. Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel; Neurourology Unit, Rambam Healthcare Campus, Haifa, Israel. 5. Urology Department, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Premal Patel; Jonathan Katz; Soum D Lokeshwar; Manuel Molina; Isildinha M Reis; Raul Clavijo; Ranjith Ramasamy Journal: Sex Med Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 2.491
Authors: Soyeun Kim; Min Chul Cho; Sung Yong Cho; Hong Chung; Mahadevan Raj Rajasekaran Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.400