Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun;9(3):1323–1328. doi: 10.21037/tau.2020.04.07

Table 3. Literature review of studies about LI-ESWT in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

Author Study design Generator Patient number Follow-up (weeks after ESWT) Energy density (mJ/mm2) No. of pulses each treatment No. of treatments each week Treatment courses (weeks) NIH-CPSI [week] CPSI↓
≥6 [week]
VAS [week] IPSS [week]
Zimmermann et al., 2008 (19) CS Minilith SLI 14 1, 4, 12 0.11 2,000 3 2 −2.7 [12] −31 [12] NA
Zimmermann et al., 2008 (19) CS Duolith SDI 20 1, 4, 12 0.25 3,000 1 4 −8.6 [1] −2.4 [1] −4.1 [1]
Zimmermann et al., 2009 (16) RCT Duolith SDI 30 1, 4, 12 0.25 3,000 1 4 −16.7 [1] −33.3 [1] −15.6 [1]
−16.7 [1] −50 [4] −18.8 [4]
−16.7 [1] −50 [12] −25 [12]
Zeng et al., 2012 (20) RCT HB-ESWT-01 8 4, 12 0.06-maximum tolerated dose 2,000 5 2 21.1% [4] NA NA
23.7% [12]
Vahdatpour et al., 2013 (21) RCT Duolith SDI 40 1, 2, 3, 12 after first LI-ESWT session 0.25–0.4 (0.05 mJ/mm2 was added in each week) 3,000 1 4 −5.1 [1] −2.0 [1] −1.0 [1]
−10.2 [3] −5.1 [3] −1.73 [3]
−7.1 [12] −4.3 [12] −0.9 [12]
Moayednia et al., 2014 (25) RCT Duolith SDI 19 16, 20, 24 0.25 3,000 1 4 −4.47 [16] −2.66 [16] −0.71 [16]
−1.06 [20] −1.24 [20] −0.39 [20]
+0.38 [24] +0.53 [24] +0.12 [24]
Pajovic et al., 2016 (26) RCT KM-2000S 30 12, 24 0.25 3,000 1 4 −19.4 [12] −9.3 [12] −2.9 [12]
−17.4 [24] −9.2 [24] −3.2 [24]
Al Edwan et al., 2017 (27) CS E-S.W.T
Roland
41 2, 24, 48 0.25 2,500 1 4 −9.2 [2] −4.1 [2] −5.9 [2]
−8.8 [24] −3.5 [24] −6.6 [24]
−8.2 [48] −3.2 [48] −6.6 [48]
Guu et al., 2018 (22) CS Duolith SDI 33 1, 4, 12 0.25 3,000 1 4 −9.06 [4] 75.8% [4] −2.38 [4] −5.18 [4]
−12.97 [12] 81.8% [12] −3.29 [12] −5.97 [12]

IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; LI-ESWT, low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy; NA, not available; NIH-CPSI, National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CS, cohort study; VAS, Visual Analog Scale.