Workshop in Barcelona on EMTT and shockwave therapy

Focus of the Instruction

The training focused on the combination of EMTT and ESWT in clinical practice, including urology, sexual dysfunction, and chronic pain. I emphasized the differences between the technologies, energy delivery, and practical patient selection rather than presenting a one-size-fits-all protocol. When I teach, my 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

EMTT and other electromagnetic technologies should be considered as a supplement to, not a substitute for, diagnostic testing. The clinical value lies in understanding which tissues and mechanisms one is attempting to influence, and how the technology can be combined with other interventions without making the treatment plan unnecessarily complex. A key point in my teaching is that “shockwave” is not a single, uniform treatment. Electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, and piezoelectric systems produce and deliver energy differently. Therefore, the focus should be on tissue, target, energy, focal zone, and patient selection—not merely on the name of the technology or a standard protocol.

For patients, this means in practice that technology should come after the assessment—not before. A treatment may be well-documented at the population level and still be a poor choice for an individual if the cause of their symptoms is different.

From Education to Clinical Quality

The professional benefits go both ways. I contribute my clinical experience and teaching expertise across various shockwave systems, while the participants bring in different workflows, case studies, and perspectives. This provides a more robust foundation for asking the critical questions that should also be asked before beginning a patient’s treatment.

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: Diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction · Focused shockwave therapy · The evidence for shockwave therapy

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