Clinical session on shockwave therapy and sexual health at the Royal Society of Medicine

Focus of the Training

The training focused on shockwave mechanisms, clinical implementation, ED, CPPS, and service delivery. I emphasized the differences between technologies, energy delivery, and practical patient selection rather than presenting a one-size-fits-all protocol. When I teach, the goal is for participants to be able to explain why a particular treatment is chosen, for whom it is appropriate, and when a different approach is more relevant.

Why this is relevant to a patient’s journey

For a man with erectile dysfunction The crucial question is not merely whether a specific treatment can be used, but why the erection has changed. Blood flow, nerve function, medications, metabolic disorders, hormones, the pelvic floor, and psychosexual factors can all play varying roles. Therefore, treatment should only be selected once the pattern has been clarified through a consultation, relevant clinical examination, and, if necessary, targeted ultrasound. In cases of CP/CPPS and chronic pelvic pain, the patient’s journey is often long because symptoms can stem from multiple structures and mechanisms simultaneously. The pelvic floor, nerves, connective tissue, pain regulation, urinary symptoms, and sexual activity may all be interrelated. This training therefore supports a broader assessment, in which shockwave therapy or EMTT are not used in isolation but are selected based on the clinical picture.

The same sequence applies in my clinical work at MS Insight. The symptom is the starting point, not the diagnosis. Only once the likely mechanisms have been narrowed down does it make sense to discuss the device, dosage, number of treatments, and combinations.

From Teaching to Clinical Quality

For me, teaching is part of maintaining my professional skills. I need to be able to explain the technology accurately, defend my clinical decisions, and at the same time be clear about the limitations of the evidence. This process is relevant to patients because it refines patient selection, helps manage expectations, and enhances the ability to opt out of treatment when the indication is not strong enough.

Another important element is managing expectations. In areas such as sexual function, chronic pain, and incontinence, two patients with the same diagnosis may have vastly different causes and prognoses. Therefore, it is important to be precise about which problem is being addressed, how progress is measured, and when a lack of response should lead to a reassessment rather than simply continuing with the same treatment.

I also emphasize the importance of distinguishing between mechanism, clinical evidence, and marketing. The fact that a technology can biologically affect tissue does not mean that it has a documented effect on all indications. Conversely, clinical evidence may be relevant without being directly transferable between different devices, doses, or patient groups. This distinction is crucial both in teaching and in conversations with patients.

It is the professional connection between education and clinical practice that I want these educational activities to demonstrate: not a promise of results, but experience in critically evaluating technology, following the evidence, and translating it into more precise decisions for each individual patient.

Read more: Prostatitis and CP/CPPS · The Evidence for Shockwave Therapy

Documentation: This article is based on publicly available event materials and/or LinkedIn posts. Sources: LinkedIn posts · LinkedIn posts