Second Shockwave Men’s Health Course in Manchester

Focus of the Training

The training focused on men’s health, technology selection, ED, CPPS, incontinence, and piezoelectric shockwave therapy. 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

In cases of CP/CPPS and chronic pelvic pain, the patient’s journey is often a long one because the 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. The 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. In cases of incontinence, “strengthening the pelvic floor” is not always a sufficient solution. Timing, coordination, tissue, nerve function, and the specific cause of the leakage are all important factors. The key professional point is therefore to link the technology to function and measurement rather than applying a single standard protocol to everyone.

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 experience from clinical practice and teaching across various shockwave systems, while participants bring in other workflows, cases, and perspectives. This provides a more robust foundation for asking the critical questions that should also be asked before a patient’s treatment begins.

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 · Peyronie’s disease and treatment options · Prostatitis and CP/CPPS

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