Effect of radial shock wave on chronic pelvic pain syndrome/chronic prostatitis.
Amr B Salama, Walid A Abouelnaga
PMID 30214114WHAT IT FOUND
Radial shock waves improved pain, urinary symptoms and quality of life more than sham in men with chronic pelvic pain syndrome.
The effect was short-term in 40 participants, so long-term benefit is not shown.
Key findings
01Radial shock waves produced significantly better pain, urinary, quality-of-life and total NIH-CPSI scores than sham at four weeks after starting treatment and eight weeks after treatment ended.
02At eight weeks after treatment ended, mean total NIH-CPSI score was 5.7 in the radial shock wave group and 21.75 in the sham group.
03At one week after starting treatment, the radial shock wave group differed significantly from sham in pain, quality of life and total score, but not urinary score.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 40 men, so the estimate could be unstable. Follow-up ended eight weeks after treatment, so long-term benefit was not tested. The paper says the study was single-blinded but does not clearly say who was blinded. Participants were men aged 18 to 50 with NIH-CPSI total score above 15 and pain above 4, so the result may not apply to older men or milder symptoms. Patients were not taking drugs during the study, so this does not show how radial shock waves work alongside usual medical treatment. The authors state the study had limited participants and no long-term follow-up.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Najran University, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume radial shock waves are a proven long-term treatment for chronic pelvic pain syndrome. The trial had 40 men and follow-up ended eight weeks after treatment, and the authors state there was no long-term follow-up.