Keynote on shockwave technology and research in Anyang, China

Focus of the Training

The training focused on basic research in shockwave therapy, piezoelectric technology, musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, and men’s health. 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, who it is suitable for, 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.

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.

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 · Focused shockwave therapy

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