Efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus on-demand tadalafil for erectile dysfunction

3Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To compare outcomes of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (LIESWT) versus 20 mg of Tadalafil in Erectile dysfunction (ED) patients. Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective study of 51 men with ED. Twenty-five were in the LIESWT group and 26 in the Tadalafil group. Patients in the LIESWT group received 6 sessions (2 per week) with an average of 6,000 shocks per session with the PiezoWave2 unit. Other patients self-administered Tadalafil on demand. The outcomes were assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score, Erection Hardness Score (EHS) and Self-Esteem And Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire before, at 6 and 12 weeks after treatment. Treatment-related side effects and costs were recorded too. Results: The mean age in the LIESWT group was 43.7 years old, and in the Tadalafil group was 47 years old. After the 6 and 12-week follow-ups, both groups showed significant improvement when comparing the baseline values to the follow-up variables for all IIEF-5, EHS, and SEAR (P < 0.05). There was a notable statistical difference between the two groups regarding the side effects, as the shockwave group was with mild side effects (8%), while the Tadalafil group (44%) of patients had side effects (p < 0.05). This cost difference is statistically significant (p < 0.001). LIESWT is more costly compared to Tadalafil. Conclusion: LIESWT has a comparable short-term therapeutic efficacy with higher safety outcomes than on-demand 20 mg of Tadalafil for ED patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zanaty, F., Badawy, A., Kotb, H., Elsarfy, F., & Salman, B. (2022). Efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus on-demand tadalafil for erectile dysfunction. Arab Journal of Urology, 20(4), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2090134

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free