Comparative effectiveness radial shockwave therapy versus focused linear shockwave therapy as an erectile dysfunction treatment systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Urology Annals Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-17 DOI:10.4103/ua.ua_13_25
Taufik Ramadhani, Syah Mirsya Warli, Ramlan Nasution, Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar, Muhammad Haritsyah Warli
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness radial shockwave therapy versus focused linear shockwave therapy as an erectile dysfunction treatment systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Taufik Ramadhani, Syah Mirsya Warli, Ramlan Nasution, Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar, Muhammad Haritsyah Warli","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_13_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Low-intensity shockwave therapy (SWT) is a promising non-invasive treatment for vasculogenic erectile dysfunction (ED). Two primary modalities, focused linear shockwave therapy (fSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (rSWT), differ in energy delivery and tissue penetration. While fSWT is well-studied, rSWT remains less explored for ED despite its growing use. This study compares the effectiveness of fSWT and rSWT in improving erectile function. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2009 and 2024 were identified through searches in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. Studies assessing erectile function using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), or Erection Hardness Score (EHS) were included. A random-effects model was applied to analyze standardized mean differences (SMD) and address heterogeneity. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that fSWT demonstrated superior efficacy compared to rSWT, with an SMD of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.04-0.86; <i>P</i> < 0.005). High heterogeneity was observed (<i>I</i>² = 80% for rSWT; <i>I</i>² = 99% for fSWT). fSWT and rSWT improved erectile function, but fSWT consistently produces better outcomes across IIEF-5, SHIM, and EHS scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":"17 2","pages":"84-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12063912/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_13_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Low-intensity shockwave therapy (SWT) is a promising non-invasive treatment for vasculogenic erectile dysfunction (ED). Two primary modalities, focused linear shockwave therapy (fSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (rSWT), differ in energy delivery and tissue penetration. While fSWT is well-studied, rSWT remains less explored for ED despite its growing use. This study compares the effectiveness of fSWT and rSWT in improving erectile function. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2009 and 2024 were identified through searches in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. Studies assessing erectile function using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), or Erection Hardness Score (EHS) were included. A random-effects model was applied to analyze standardized mean differences (SMD) and address heterogeneity. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that fSWT demonstrated superior efficacy compared to rSWT, with an SMD of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.04-0.86; P < 0.005). High heterogeneity was observed (I² = 80% for rSWT; I² = 99% for fSWT). fSWT and rSWT improved erectile function, but fSWT consistently produces better outcomes across IIEF-5, SHIM, and EHS scores.

放射冲击波治疗与聚焦线性冲击波治疗勃起功能障碍的疗效比较系统回顾和荟萃分析。
低强度冲击波治疗(SWT)是治疗血管源性勃起功能障碍(ED)的一种很有前途的无创治疗方法。两种主要的治疗方式,聚焦线性冲击波治疗(fSWT)和径向冲击波治疗(rSWT),在能量传递和组织穿透方面有所不同。虽然fSWT已经得到了很好的研究,但rSWT在ED中的应用却很少。本研究比较了fSWT和rSWT在改善勃起功能方面的有效性。按照PRISMA 2020指南进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。2009年至2024年间发表的相关研究通过PubMed、ScienceDirect和Cochrane Library进行检索。包括使用国际勃起功能指数(IIEF-5)、男性性健康量表(SHIM)或勃起硬度评分(EHS)评估勃起功能的研究。采用随机效应模型分析标准化平均差异(SMD)和异质性。15项研究符合纳入标准。荟萃分析显示,与rSWT相比,fSWT表现出更好的疗效,SMD为0.45 (95% CI: 0.04-0.86;P < 0.005)。rSWT观察到高度异质性(I²= 80%;对于fSWT, I²= 99%)。fSWT和rSWT改善了勃起功能,但fSWT在IIEF-5、SHIM和EHS评分中始终具有更好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信