Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy among urologist practitioners: how the opinion of urologists changed between 2016 and 2019

Over the past few years, an increase use of low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) has been observed. However, many controversies in the scientific literature about its efficacy still exist. We aimed to investigate changes in the pattern of usage and a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of impotence research 2020-12, Vol.33 (8), p.839-843
Hauptverfasser: Capogrosso, Paolo, Di Mauro, Marina, Fode, Mikkel, Lowenstein, Lior, Reisman, Yacov, Dehò, Federico, Salonia, Andrea, Russo, Giorgio Ivan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Over the past few years, an increase use of low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) has been observed. However, many controversies in the scientific literature about its efficacy still exist. We aimed to investigate changes in the pattern of usage and attitudes toward LISWT for ED among experts over the last years. A dedicated online survey was sent to delegates at the Congress for the EAU Section of Andrological Urology (ESAU) in Prague from 31st October to 1st November 2019. The survey captured demographic data, professional background, and the experience and personal knowledge about LISWT. The results were compared with a previous survey conducted in 2016 and investigating the same topics in order to assess changes in the knowledge and opinion on LISWT over time. Overall, 172 and 192 questionnaires were available from 2019 and 2016, respectively. Participants in the 2019 survey were 80 (45.7%) urologists, 52 (29.7%) uro-andrologists, and 34 (19.4%) residents in urology, from 30 different countries. Compared to the past, we observed an increase of respondents who were familiar with LISWT (75 vs. 95%; p  
ISSN:0955-9930
1476-5489
DOI:10.1038/s41443-020-00347-x