ESWT Urology Workshop at the 5th inSAU Meeting in Yogyakarta

Focus of the Training

The training focused on focused shockwave therapy in urology, clinical questions, practical insights, and professional exchange. I emphasized the differences between technologies, energy delivery, and practical patient selection rather than presenting a universal protocol. When I teach, my goal is for participants to be able to explain why a particular treatment is chosen, for whom it is suitable, and when a different approach is more appropriate.

Why this is relevant to a patient’s journey

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 just on the name of the technology or a standard protocol.

I therefore use teaching as an ongoing professional quality assessment of my own clinical model. When I have to explain my choice of technology and indication to other clinicians, both the strengths and limitations become clearer.

From Education to Clinical Quality

When education takes place on an international scale, differences in practice become apparent: which patients are referred, how they are examined, which devices are available, and how results are evaluated. This variation is valuable because it serves as a reminder that sound clinical decisions should not rely on a single manufacturer, a single protocol, or a single explanatory model.

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.

For each individual patient, professional expertise should be conveyed with clarity: What do we know? What is likely? What is uncertain? And what is the next rational step? This is the part of the patient journey that is often missing when patients encounter many different treatment options online. My goal is for the examination and explanation to make the choice more manageable before a decision is made about a course of treatment.

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 · The evidence for shockwave therapy · Men’s Health workshops for healthcare professionals

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