Indirect assessment of low-intensity shockwave therapy's energy density and pulse frequency for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review, bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Shockwaves are thought to activate regenerative and angiogenic pathways, providing a possible therapeutic benefit for patients with erectile dysfunction. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy energy density and pulse frequency. In May 2022, a systematic search of online databases was performed to identify randomized clinical trials related to low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy in erectile dysfunction. Eligible articles compared low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy to controls or sham procedures. A Bayesian framework with 200,000 Markov chains was performed. We included a total of 1272 patients from 18 studies. The energy flux density measured in joules included 0.09 mJ/mm2 (mean difference 3.2 IIEF [95% CrI 2.8, 3.6]), 0.15 mJ/mm2 (mean difference 4.9 IIEF [95% CrI 2.8, 7.2]) and 0.20 mJ/mm2 (mean difference 1.2 IIEF [95% CrI 0.11, 2.3]). Of these, 0.15 mJ/mm2 had the greatest ranking (SUCRA = 0.983) compared with placebo. When analyzed by pulse frequency, significant increases were found in 500 pulses/session (mean difference 2.5 IIEF [CrI 1.9, 3.2]), 1500 pulses/session (mean difference 4.6 IIEF [95% CrI 3.9, 5.4]) and > 3000 pulses/session (mean difference 3.1 IIEF [95% CrI 2.1, 4.2]). Of these, 1500 pulses/session had the highest SUCRA, at 0.996. Our network meta-analysis suggests that low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy is an effective intervention for erectile dysfunction, as measured by increases in the IIEF-EF. Sessions featuring 1500 pulses and an energy flux density of 0.15 mJ/mm2 appear to be the most effective.

Comparison of Urinary Diversion in Patients With Prostatic Fistula to Those with Localized Radiation Injury After Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics and outcomes in patients who had radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and underwent urinary diversion (UD) due to prostatic fistula (Fistula) vs localized radiation injury (Localized). METHODS: This study was a retrospective single-institution study. Exclusion criteria included follow-up <3 months, large pelvic tumor, and surgery for cancer control. The Fistula group included fistulization outside of the urinary tract (rectal, soft tissue, thigh, pubic symphysis, and extensive necrosis surrounding the prostate). The group Localized had a multitude of problems; however, all were confined to the urinary tract. Patient characteristics, perioperative variables, and outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included and had UD from 2009-2022. Median age and time from RT to UD were 73 (interquartile range (IQR) 67.9, 78.1) and 7.3 (IQR 3.2, 12.5) years. There were 29 (42%) and 40 (58%) patients in the Fistula and Localized groups. The Fistula group had a higher rate of abdominal/perineal approach (62.1% vs 12.5%, P <.001), a lower rate of right colon pouch (17.2% vs 40%, P = .043), and a longer operative time (515.7 vs 414.2 minutes, P = .017). Clavien-Dindo complications ≥3 were higher in the Fistula group (44.8% vs 20%, P = .027), including a higher rate of re-operation for recurrent pelvic abscess (37.9% vs 5%, P <.001). Survival for the cohort was 85.5% and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate fistula after RT for PCa undergoing UD had longer, more complex operations, and higher rates of complications, notably post-operative pelvic abscesses, compared to men with localized RT injury. Long-term survival was comparable in both groups.