Level 3 Shockwave Masterclass in Atlanta

Focus of the Instruction

The training focused on advanced indications and the clinical application of shockwave therapy in orthopedics. I emphasized the differences between 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

Even when the instruction goes beyond sexual health, its academic value is relevant to shockwave therapy in the clinic: tissue response, dosing, energy delivery, pain physiology, and rehabilitation all follow the same basic requirements regarding indications, safety, and ongoing assessment. 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.

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 Education 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 isn’t 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: The evidence for shockwave therapy · Focused shockwave therapy · My professional background and MS Insight

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