Erectile dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie’s disease (PD) can be emotionally exhausting—not only because of sexual symptoms, but because they can affect identity, confidence, relationships, and mental health. PD, in particular, is explicitly recognized as a condition that may be accompanied by pain, deformity, ED, and significant distress. [1]
At the same time, these conditions sit at an intersection of sexual health and broader medical health. ED is often (not always) related to vascular function, and multiple large analyses support ED as an independent predictor or risk marker for cardiovascular disease and adverse cardiovascular outcomes—especially relevant in clinical care because ED can precede clinically apparent cardiovascular disease in some men. [2]
This dual reality—high personal burden plus meaningful medical implications—creates fertile ground for “restorative” promises. Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT) is one of the most visible examples. Many clinics market LiSWT (also called low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, Li-ESWT; or low-intensity acoustic therapy) as a way to “restore” erectile tissue or improve penile symptoms, often emphasizing noninvasiveness and the hope of improvement without pills, injections, or surgery. [3]
This post is designed for: – Patients and partners seeking a clear, evidence-based explanation of LiSWT for ED, penile pain, and PD. – U.S.-based clinicians who want an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence, devices, and practical counseling points. – Anyone trying to understand what “not FDA approved” means (and does not mean), how device type matters, and what costs and coverage typically look like in the U.S. [4]
What LiSWT is and why device details matter
The simplest useful physics
In medicine, the words wave, soundwave, ultrasound, and shockwave are often used loosely in marketing—but they are not interchangeable.
A wave is a disturbance that transports energy through a medium without permanently transporting matter. Sound waves are mechanical compression/rarefaction waves traveling through a medium. [5]
Ultrasound refers to sound waves above the upper range of human hearing (>20 kHz). In medical imaging, ultrasound is primarily used because different tissues reflect ultrasound differently, allowing image formation. [5]
A shockwave, in physics terms, is characterized by a very rapid rise time and a high peak pressure; it is classically described as occurring when a wave propagates faster than the speed of sound in that medium. In therapeutic shockwave discussions, what matters clinically is that shockwaves deliver a brief, high-pressure impulse (with characteristic rise time and pressure profile), and that energy delivery can be described using concepts such as energy flux density (EFD). [6]
In low-intensity shockwave therapy for ED, the goal is not to break something (like a kidney stone). Instead, low-energy pulses are applied externally with the aim of triggering biological responses (discussed below) without causing tissue destruction. [7]
How “low-intensity” shockwave devices generate waves
Most medical shockwave generators used in clinical research fall into three generator families:
- Electrohydraulic generators (spark discharge in fluid creates a shockwave).
- Electromagnetic generators (electromagnetic forces move a membrane to create the wave).
- Piezoelectric generators (piezoelectric crystals expand/contract with applied voltage, generating waves—often self-focusing due to crystal arrangement). [8]
A “focused” shockwave system concentrates energy to a target region at depth (a focal zone), while other systems may distribute energy differently (for example, some are described as “linear” or “parabolic” in marketing). The key clinical implication is that the wave field and delivered energy can vary meaningfully between devices, and the ED literature has used heterogeneous devices and protocols—making “LiSWT” more like a category than a single standardized treatment. [3]
Focused shockwaves vs radial pressure waves: why the distinction is central
A major source of confusion is the conflation of focused shockwave therapy with radial pressure wave therapy (sometimes called “radial shockwave,” although multiple technical sources emphasize that “shockwave” may be a misnomer for some radial devices). [9]
Clinical and technical sources describe key differences:
- Radial pressure waves disperse outward from the applicator tip, generally with lower tissue penetration and different physical characteristics (e.g., longer rise time and lower peak pressure compared with focused shockwaves). [10]
- The Sexual Medicine Society of North America[11] position statement warns that radial wave therapy is often marketed for ED despite limited clinical research and that the technology is not equivalent to LiSWT used in many ED trials; it notes differences in tissue penetration depth and energy parameters between radial devices and LiSWT systems. [12]
- A U.S. academic health system (University of Utah Health[13]) explicitly distinguishes the two: shockwave therapy (LiSWT) has some supportive evidence and is delivered by trained clinicians, while radial wave therapy is commonly advertised in medical and non-medical settings and (per their patient information) has no data supporting ED claims. [14]
Importantly, this is not an argument that radial pressure wave therapy has no role in medicine (it is used in musculoskeletal contexts). The point for ED/PD counseling is narrower: evidence from focused LiSWT trials cannot be automatically generalized to radial wave devices marketed as “acoustic wave” ED treatments, and the ED evidence base for radial devices is limited and mixed. [15]
What a patient typically experiences during treatment
Across patient-facing summaries and evidence syntheses, LiSWT is usually described as an office-based procedure using a handheld applicator and coupling gel, applied to multiple sites on or near the penis. Treatment sessions are commonly described as lasting about 15–20 minutes, repeated over several weeks, generally without anesthesia. [16]
However, the exact “dose” varies. A review of randomized, sham-controlled ED trials noted commonly used settings such as energy around 0.09 mJ/mm² and protocols often in the range of ~1,500 shocks per session distributed across penile regions and proximal corpora/crura—while emphasizing ongoing protocol variability. [17]
From a patient and clinician decision-making standpoint, this variability matters because it affects: – comparability between studies, – expectations for benefit, – and whether a clinic’s offered protocol resembles protocols in trials at all. [18]
Evidence for LiSWT in male erectile dysfunction
Why LiSWT is appealing as a concept
Most common ED treatments (PDE5 inhibitors, injections, vacuum devices, implants) are primarily symptom-management—they help create erections but do not directly “reverse” underlying vascular pathology. The appeal of LiSWT is that it is marketed as a restorative approach, potentially improving penile blood flow, endothelial function, and tissue health. [19]
Mechanistically, the SMSNA position statement summarizes proposed biological effects suggested by preclinical work (and some human hemodynamic observations): neoangiogenesis, recruitment of progenitor cells, improved microcirculation, nitric oxide–related vasodilation, reduced fibrosis, and possible nerve-regenerative effects—while emphasizing that translation from animal models to human ED is complex and the clinical evidence remains limited. [12]
This mechanistic promise is plausible enough to justify research. But whether it produces meaningful, durable improvements in real-world patients is ultimately an empirical question.
What the highest-quality evidence syntheses conclude
Cochrane review (updated through July 2024)
A 2025 Cochrane[20] evidence summary evaluated randomized/sham-controlled trials of LiSWT for ED and identified 21 studies with 1,357 men, ages roughly 39–65, with ED duration from months to years. [21]
Key takeaways from that Cochrane evidence summary: – LiSWT may improve erections in the longer term (>3 months), and may improve penile rigidity in the short term, but effects may be small and not necessarily clinically noticeable. [21]
– Treatment-related side effects and discontinuation due to side effects were uncommon in the short term. [21]
– The certainty of evidence was low across outcomes, due to methodological limitations, heterogeneity in how shockwaves were delivered, and variability in results; the summary also notes that several studies were industry-funded. [21]
For clinicians, this is an important counseling frame: “may help” with low certainty is not the same as “proven and durable.”
Recent meta-analyses can show statistical benefit—and still leave counseling challenges
A 2025 systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reported that Li-ESWT improved erectile function outcomes compared with sham/control across included RCTs. [22]
An umbrella review (review of systematic reviews) similarly concluded that Li-ESWT shows improvements in sexual function and penile hardness outcomes in aggregated analyses, but umbrella reviews also inherit the heterogeneity and bias of the underlying trials and meta-analyses. [23]
When these reviews are read alongside the Cochrane synthesis, an evidence-based reconciliation looks like this: – Many meta-analyses find statistically significant improvements on questionnaire-based endpoints. – But the size of improvement, the patient populations most likely to benefit, the optimal protocol, and the durability remain uncertain or variable across studies. [24]
What outcomes are measured, and what “improvement” usually means
Most ED LiSWT trials use patient-reported scores such as the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) or its abridged form (IIEF-5/SHIM), plus sometimes Erection Hardness Score (EHS) and penile Doppler parameters. [25]
Patients commonly hope for outcomes such as: – reliable penetration hardness without medication, – reduced reliance on PDE5 inhibitors, – long-term restoration rather than short-term assist.
Trials and reviews show that: – Gains often look like a few points on IIEF-based scales, which can be meaningful for some men but subtle for others—especially depending on baseline severity. [7]
– Severe ED populations often show lower response rates in observational data; the SMSNA statement describes one large non-randomized cohort in which men with severe ED did not respond, whereas a subset with mild to mild-moderate ED maintained satisfactory function at long follow-up. [12]
Durability: how long do benefits last?
“Does it last?” is one of the most important unanswered questions.
A long-term analysis of a randomized sham-controlled trial reported sustained improvement for up to about 2 years with a peak effect around 1 year, followed by decline between years 2 and 3. [26]
This suggests that LiSWT may not be a one-time “cure” for many men, and it raises practical counseling issues around: – whether repeat courses (“boosters”) are needed, – how often, – at what added cost, – and with what cumulative evidence of safety and effectiveness. [27]
Why professional societies in North America remain cautious
The SMSNA position statement emphasizes that robust, adequately powered, multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled trials in well-characterized populations are lacking, and it concludes that restorative therapies (including LiSWT) should be reserved for clinical trials rather than routine clinical practice until stronger evidence exists. [28]
Patient education from the Urology Care Foundation[29] similarly warns that shockwave therapy is “likely safe” but that many large studies show only small or no improvement, highlighting misinformation and high out-of-pocket costs; it notes that ED guidelines suggest LiSWT should only be done in approved clinical trials and references SMSNA’s research-only posture. [30]
From a shared decision-making perspective, this caution is not a dismissal—it is a call for honest expectation-setting: – Some men may improve. – Many men may experience minimal change. – We cannot yet classify LiSWT as a uniformly reliable ED therapy on par with established options. [31]
Evidence for LiSWT in Peyronie’s disease, penile pain, and penile curvature
What Peyronie’s disease is and why natural history complicates “pain outcomes”
The American Urological Association[32] (AUA) guideline defines PD as an acquired penile abnormality characterized by fibrosis of the tunica albuginea, potentially accompanied by pain, deformity, ED, and distress. [33]
A key natural history point: pain often resolves over time without intervention, while curvature is less likely to resolve spontaneously (though some younger men or those early in disease may experience improvement). [33]
This matters because a therapy that appears to improve pain may, in part, be capturing: – the natural resolution of pain over time, – placebo effects, – regression to the mean, – or changing disease phase—especially if follow-up is short or controls are limited. The AUA guideline explicitly notes that pain is susceptible to placebo effects and that studying PD is challenging because symptoms can change over time even without treatment. [1]
What the AUA guideline says about ESWT in Peyronie’s disease
The AUA PD guideline provides unusually direct guidance:
- Clinicians should not use extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) to reduce penile curvature or plaque size (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade B). [1]
- Clinicians may offer ESWT to improve penile pain (Conditional Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade B). [1]
- The guideline panel notes that penile pain commonly resolves over time and ESWT may pose substantial burden; the panel’s opinion is that the overall utility of ESWT in PD management is low. [1]
This is one of the clearest evidence-based takeaways patients and clinicians can use: – For curvature:ESWT is not recommended as a curvature-reduction strategy. – For pain: ESWT may help some men, but the expected benefit must be weighed against natural pain resolution and the burden/cost of treatment. [1]
What randomized trials and newer reviews suggest
The guideline cites randomized/sham-controlled trials in which: – Curvature outcomes were similar in ESWT vs sham groups. – Pain outcomes decreased more in ESWT groups in some trials. [1]
More recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses continue to wrestle with similar signals: improvements in pain outcomes appear more consistent than meaningful curvature correction, and measurement differences (how curvature is assessed; how plaque is quantified) contribute to heterogeneous conclusions. [34]
For counseling, the clinically conservative interpretation remains aligned with the AUA guideline: – If a patient’s primary goal is curvature reduction sufficient to restore penetrative sex, the evidence base does not support LiSWT as a reliable stand-alone solution. [35]
– If a patient’s primary issue is penile pain, especially during the active phase, a time-limited trial of ESWT could be discussed—but only after acknowledging that pain often improves naturally and that treatment burden and cost can be substantial. [35]
Putting LiSWT in context with other PD treatments that are FDA-authorized
Unlike LiSWT for ED/PD, collagenase clostridium histolyticum (brand: Xiaflex) received FDA approval for PD in adult men with a palpable plaque and a curvature deformity of at least 30 degrees at therapy start, with a marketing approval date of December 6, 2013. [36]
From a U.S. decision-making standpoint, this matters because: – Xiaflex has a defined FDA-labeled indication for PD. [36]
– LiSWT does not have an FDA-labeled indication for PD curvature correction, and AUA guidance discourages its use for curvature reduction. [37]
This does not mean every patient should get Xiaflex—eligibility, disease stability, curvature features, erectile function, risk tolerance, and goals all matter—but it does highlight that “FDA-authorized treatment exists for PD curvature” whereas LiSWT for curvature is not evidence-supported in U.S. guidelines. [38]
Penile pain outside Peyronie’s disease: a cautionary note
Penile pain can stem from PD, pelvic floor dysfunction, dermatologic or neuropathic causes, infection/inflammation, trauma, medication effects, or more rarely malignancy. PD-related pain is common early, but other causes should be considered—especially if pain occurs without curvature, plaque, or phase-consistent symptoms. [1]
Some clinics market shockwave approaches for other urologic symptoms (e.g., chronic pelvic pain syndrome), but these use cases remain outside clear FDA-labeled indications and typically have smaller, more heterogeneous evidence bases than ED trials. [39]
Safety profile and what patients should realistically expect
Across clinical trials and major evidence summaries, LiSWT appears generally well tolerated in the short term, with treatment-related adverse events and discontinuation uncommon. [7]
For PD trials, bruising is a commonly reported minor adverse event in some studies, and the guideline recommends counseling about burdens and realistic expectations. [1]
For ED treatments, typical expectations described in evidence summaries and clinical education materials include: – office-based sessions, – gel-coupled applicator, – no anesthesia for most patients, – minimal downtime, – multiple sessions across weeks. [16]
However, two practical cautions are essential:
First: “Safe in the short term” is not identical to “fully characterized long-term.”
Many trials have limited follow-up; durability studies exist but remain relatively few, and protocol differences make long-term comparisons difficult. [40]
Second: Safety and ethical delivery depend on proper clinical evaluation.
A cross-sectional “secret shopper” study of U.S. metropolitan markets found that shockwave therapy for ED is often delivered by non-urologists and even non-physicians, with wide variation in protocols and costs—raising concerns about inconsistent credentials, counseling, and evaluation for underlying health issues. [41]
FDA status, what “not FDA approved” means, and why insurance usually does not cover LiSWT for ED/PD
FDA “approval,” “clearance,” and “exemption” in plain terms
In the U.S., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration[42] regulates medical devices and authorizes marketing pathways that include (among others): – Premarket Approval (PMA) (often for higher-risk devices), – 510(k) clearance (demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device), – and exemptcategories (many Class I and some Class II devices may be exempt from 510(k) requirements, with important limitations). [43]
A core regulatory concept is intended use / indications for use: FDA authorizes marketing of a device for specific labeled uses. The same type of technology can be authorized for one condition and not authorized for another. [44]
What is FDA-authorized for shockwave technology
Shockwave technology has FDA-authorized uses in multiple domains, including:
- Kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripters are intended to fragment urinary stones (high-energy shockwaves, very different therapeutic intent than LiSWT for ED). [45]
- Musculoskeletal indications: a PMA record documents FDA approval for the HealthTronics OssaTron device for chronic lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow). [46]
- Chronic plantar fasciitis: payer summaries cite FDA-approved indication(s) for chronic proximal plantar fasciitis for certain ESWT devices. [47]
- Chronic wound/diabetic foot ulcer–related indications: FDA device classification documentation describes an “extracorporeal shock wave device for treatment of chronic wounds,” including technical methods (spark gap/electromagnetic/piezoelectric) and focused delivery; this class is codified in federal regulation (21 CFR 878.4685). [48]
- The FDA 510(k) database includes specific clearances (e.g., K202112 for a Duolith system for diabetic foot ulcers). [49]
These examples illustrate an important counseling point: shockwave technology is real, regulated, and clinically used in multiple FDA-authorized ways—just not (currently) with ED/PD as an FDA-labeled indication for most marketed U.S. offerings.
What is LiSWT not FDA approved for urologic indications
Multiple reputable sources state that shockwave therapy is not FDA approved for treating ED: – A major academic health system describes LiSWT for ED as experimental and explicitly states it is not FDA approved for ED. [14]
– The Urology Practice market analysis states that shockwave therapy for ED is not FDA approved. [50]
– Clinical press coverage of the same analysis describes clinics marketing non-FDA-approved shockwave therapy for ED with wide protocol and cost variation. [51]
For PD curvature, the AUA guideline discourages ESWT use for curvature reduction, and FDA-labeled PD curvature treatment exists via collagenase rather than ESWT. [52]
For other men’s health issues sometimes bundled with LiSWT sales (e.g., testosterone therapy, “prostate pain”): testosterone therapy is a medication category governed by drug/biologic standards, not a shockwave-device indication, and shockwave devices do not have FDA-labeled indications for ED/PD or broad “men’s health rejuvenation” packages. In U.S. counseling, the safest framing is: if a clinic is selling a bundled men’s-health protocol, patients should ask which components have FDA-labeled indications for the claimed benefit and which are off-label or investigational. [53]
A critical nuance: some devices are FDA-listed, but not for ED
A major source of confusion is marketing language like “FDA registered” or “FDA cleared,” used to imply ED authorization.
A concrete example from FDA documentation: – The FDA 510(k) database entry for K210166 lists the Omnispec ED1000 as a “Massager, Therapeutic, Electric” (regulation 21 CFR 890.5660; product code ISA). [54]
– The “Indications for Use” form for that submission states it is intended for “relief of minor muscle aches and pains” and “temporary increase in local blood circulation” (not ED). [55]
This illustrates why patients and clinicians should ask not just “Is it FDA cleared?” but: – Cleared for what indication?
– Under what classification and product code? [56]
Off-label use: what it means and does not mean
In U.S. practice, clinicians may use legally marketed devices off-label based on clinical judgment, evidence, and informed consent; FDA marketing authorization governs what manufacturers can market and what is labeled, not necessarily every physician use. [57]
For patients, practical implications of “off-label / not FDA-approved for ED” are: – The FDA has not reviewed the device’s clinical evidence for ED as a labeled indication in the same way it reviews/authorizes labeled indications. – Protocols and equipment may vary widely, with no single standardized FDA-labeled ED treatment protocol. – Informed consent should include explicit discussion that the urologic indication is off-label/investigational and that benefits are not guaranteed. [58]
Coverage and costs in the U.S.
Because LiSWT for ED is described as experimental/investigational and not FDA approved for ED by major U.S. patient education and market analyses, insurance coverage is uncommon, and treatment is often offered as an out-of-pocket purchase. [59]
Published U.S. cost data include:
- A Urology Practice “secret shopper” study across large U.S. cities reported an average price per session of about $491 and an average price per treatment course of about $3,338, with wide variation and a range extending to five figures in some markets. [41]
- A large academic men’s health program reports typical per-treatment costs on the order of several hundred dollars and states the treatment is not covered by insurance, with treatment usually involving multiple sessions. [14]
- The Urology Care Foundation advises patients to be cautious because out-of-pocket costs may be high and improvement may be small or absent for many men. [30]
A reasonable evidence-based expectation to counsel in the U.S. is: – Per session: commonly several hundred dollars. – Per series: commonly a few thousand dollars, but potentially much higher depending on market, clinic, and offered number of sessions. – Add-on costs: evaluation visits, labs, penile Doppler ultrasound, or “maintenance” sessions can raise total spending. [60]
A decision framework for patients and clinicians
LiSWT is best approached as a shared decision rather than a commodity purchase. Below is a practical framework that respects both the promise and the uncertainty.
Start with the diagnosis and the “why.”
For ED, evaluate vasculogenic vs psychogenic vs medication-related vs endocrine vs neurogenic contributors, and take ED seriously as a potential marker for cardiometabolic risk. [61]
For PD, define whether disease is active vs stable, document curvature and function, and discuss natural history (including spontaneous pain improvement). [1]
Compare with established, evidence-based options.
For ED: PDE5 inhibitors, vacuum devices, injections, and penile implants have clearer efficacy profiles than LiSWT overall. [62]
For PD curvature: guideline-supported options include intralesional collagenase for appropriate candidates and surgical approaches for stable disease with significant functional impairment; ESWT is not recommended for curvature reduction. [38]
If considering LiSWT for ED, match expectations to evidence.
The most defensible counseling statement today is: – LiSWT may provide modest improvement for some men, particularly those with mild-to-moderate vasculogenic ED. – Evidence certainty is low, treatment protocols vary, and long-term durability is still being defined. – It should not be sold as a guaranteed cure. [63]
If considering ESWT for PD, anchor to the guideline message.
– Not for curvature/plaque reduction (per AUA guideline). – Possible discussion for pain, with careful framing about natural pain resolution and treatment burden. [1]
Questions patients should feel comfortable asking (and clinicians should be ready to answer)
- What exact device will be used, and what type of generator is it (electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, piezoelectric, or radial pressure wave)? [64]
- Is the device focused shockwave or radial pressure wave? If radial, what evidence supports ED/PD claims with that device class? [65]
- What is the planned protocol (energy flux density, number of shocks per session, frequency, number of sessions, treatment sites) and how does it compare with randomized sham-controlled protocols? [66]
- What outcomes will be measured (IIEF/SHIM, EHS, penile duplex ultrasound), and what change would be considered meaningful? [67]
- What are realistic benefits and limitations based on systematic reviews, including uncertainty about durability and need for repeat sessions? [68]
- What is the full cost (consultation, testing, per session, total series, potential “maintenance”), and what is the refund/cancellation policy? [69]
- Will insurance cover any part? If not, why, and can the clinic provide documentation of medical necessity and coding used (with the understanding that coverage is unlikely)? [70]
- Who is administering the treatment and what is their training? The U.S. market analysis shows large variation in provider credentials; patients should not have to guess. [41]
Common “red flags” from published analyses of the U.S. marketplace
- Advertising that implies standardized cure rates despite acknowledged lack of standardization and low-certainty evidence. [71]
- Lack of transparency about the type of device used (focused vs radial; generator type). [72]
- High-pressure sales to distressed men with minimal emphasis on medical evaluation, cardiovascular risk, or guideline-based options. [41]
- Claims implying FDA authorization for ED when FDA documentation may relate to different indications (e.g., therapeutic massager indications rather than ED). [73]
References
- Ergun O, Kim K, Kim MH, Hwang EC, Blair Y, Gudeloglu A, Parekattil S, Dahm P. Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;7:CD013166.
- Liu JL, Chu KY, Gabrielson AT, Wang R, Trost L, Broderick G, Davies K, Brock G, Mulhall J, Ramasamy R, Bivalacqua TJ. Restorative therapies for erectile dysfunction: position statement from the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA). Sex Med. 2021;9(3):100343. doi:10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100343.
- Katz JE, Clavijo RI, Rizk P, Ramasamy R. The basic physics of waves, soundwaves, and shockwaves for erectile dysfunction. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8(1):100-105. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.09.004.
- Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, et al. Peyronie’s disease: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2015;194(3):745-753. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.098.
- Weinberger JM, Shahinyan GK, Yang SC, Shahinyan RH, Mills JN, Eleswarapu SV. Shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction: marketing and practice trends in major metropolitan areas in the United States. Urol Pract. 2022;9(3):212-219. doi:10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000299.
- Mostafaei H, Mori K, Hajebrahimi S, et al. Association of erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular disease: an umbrella review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2021;128(1):3-20.
- Zhao B, Hong Z, Wei Y, et al. Erectile dysfunction predicts cardiovascular events as an independent risk factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sex Med. 2019;16(7):1005-1017.
- Lange M, Charles D, Kazeem A, et al. Is low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction a durable treatment option? Long-term outcomes of a randomized sham-controlled trial. Transl Androl Urol. 2024;13(10):2194-2200.
- Fatima K, Abbas Z, Un-Noor A, et al. Efficacy of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Impot Res. 2025.
- Urology Care Foundation. Shockwave therapy for ED. UrologyHealth.org Magazine. Winter 2021-2022.
- University of Utah Health. Shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED). Patient education page.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) premarket notification: substantial equivalence overview. FDA database page.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Class I and Class II device exemptions. FDA device classification resource.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. PMA database entry: Approval for the HealthTronics OssaTron for chronic lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR 878.4685: extracorporeal shock wave device for treatment of chronic wounds.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) Premarket Notification database entry K210166 (Omnispec ED1000), classification “Massager, Therapeutic, Electric” (product code ISA).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. K210166 indications for use (Omnispec ED1000): intended for relief of minor muscle aches and pains and temporary increase in local blood circulation.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Orphan drug designation and approval listing for collagenase clostridium histolyticum (Xiaflex) for Peyronie’s disease; marketing approval date December 6, 2013.
- Aetna. Clinical policy bulletin: Xiaflex (collagenase clostridium histolyticum) FDA-approved indications including Peyronie’s disease.
- Medrano-Sánchez EM, et al. Effectiveness of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy in erectile dysfunction: umbrella review. J Pers Med. 2024.
- Hayon S, et al. Variations in low intensity shockwave treatment protocols for erectile dysfunction: review of randomized sham-controlled trials and meta-analyses. World J Mens Health. 2024.
Medical disclaimer
This article is for general educational purposes only and is not medical advice. It does not diagnose, treat, or provide individualized care recommendations for any specific person. Decisions about erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, penile pain, and any related treatments—including low-intensity shockwave therapy—should be made with a qualified licensed clinician who can evaluate your personal medical history, risk factors, and goals. Reading this article or interacting with its contents does not create a physician–patient relationship. If you have urgent symptoms (such as severe penile pain, sudden penile deformity after trauma, significant bleeding, signs of infection, or concerning systemic symptoms), seek prompt in-person medical care.
[1] [32] [33] [35] [37] [38] [52] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5027990/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5027990
[2] [42] [61] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8359379/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8359379
[3] [7] [13] [16] [18] [20] [21] [24] [29] [31] [40] [58] [62] [63] [67] [68] Is low-intensity shockwave therapy effective and safe for treating erectile dysfunction? | Cochrane
[4] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/overview-device-regulation/classify-your-medical-device
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/overview-device-regulation/classify-your-medical-device
[5] [6] [8] [64] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6934904/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6934904
[9] [10] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7275282/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7275282
[11] [12] [15] [19] [25] [39] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8240368/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8240368
[14] [59] [65] [70] https://healthcare.utah.edu/mens-health/conditions/erectile-dysfunction/shockwave-therapy
https://healthcare.utah.edu/mens-health/conditions/erectile-dysfunction/shockwave-therapy
[17] https://wjmh.org/DOIx.php?id=10.5534%2Fwjmh.230105
https://wjmh.org/DOIx.php?id=10.5534%2Fwjmh.230105
[22] Efficacy of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy …
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40497649/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[23] Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for Peyronie’s Disease
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/01.ju.0000108060.30363.8d?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[26] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39507860/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39507860
[27] https://tau.amegroups.org/article/view/130285/html
https://tau.amegroups.org/article/view/130285/html
[28] Restorative Therapies for Erectile Dysfunction: Position Statement From the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) – PubMed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34000480
[30] https://magazine.urologyhealth.org/winter_2021-2022/did-you-know
https://magazine.urologyhealth.org/winter_2021-2022/did-you-know
[34] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10498627/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10498627
[36] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/opdlisting/oopd/detailedIndex.cfm?cfgridkey=95496
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/opdlisting/oopd/detailedIndex.cfm?cfgridkey=95496
[41] [50] [60] [69] [71] [72] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12721601/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12721601
[43] Drugs, Devices, and the FDA: Part 2 – PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6113340/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[44] [53] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm
[45] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products/content-premarket-notifications-510ks-extracorporeal-shock-wave-lithotripters-indicated
[46] Premarket Approval (PMA) – FDA
[47] Extracorporeal Shock Wave Treatment for Musculoskeletal …
[48] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/classification.cfm?productcode=PZL&start_search=1
[49] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K202112
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K202112
[51] https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/news/shockwave-therapy-for-erectile-dysfunction-concerns-raised-about-marketing-of-unproven-therapy
[54] [56] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K210166
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K210166
[55] [73] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K210166.pdf
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K210166.pdf
[57] Off-Label Use for Drugs and Medical Devices | SCAI
https://www.secondscount.org/resource/label-use-drugs-and-medical-devices?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[66] Variations in Low Intensity Shockwave Treatment Protocols …https://wjmh.org/DOIx.php?id=10.5534%2Fwjmh.230105&utm_source=chatgpt.com