(232) The Use of Restorative Therapies for Erectile Dysfunction: A Review of the Current Canadian Landscape
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the inability to achieve or maintain an erection that is sufficient for sexual performance. Restorative therapies are heralded as options to restore one’s natural, spontaneous erection without the need for pharmacologic therapy. There is a growing interest in these therapies including low-intensity shockwave therapy (Li-EST), platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cells for the treatment of ED. However, limited data exists to support their routine clinical use. With direct-to-consumer marketing, numerous clinics across Canada now offer this therapy. We sought to investigate the landscape of restorative therapies for ED across Canada. Objective The objective is to evaluate how restorative therapies for ED are being marketed and administered to patients. Our study hopes to analyze cost, indications for treatment, equipment utilized, treatment protocol, clinic ownership, level of training for staff, and whether a urologic consult is required prior to treatment. Methods Searches were made on a private Google browser with queries that include phrases “Shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction in Province/Territory”, “PRP therapy for erectile dysfunction in Province/Territory”, among others. Searches were also made to include any stem cell regenerative therapies for ED. Clinics advertising their services online had their public website analysed for preliminary data collection. Our team captured data on costs, treatment duration, success rates, adjuvant therapies administered and more. Data obtained was then compared against existing literature to assess the accuracy of marketing towards patients. Results To date, we have obtained preliminary results from 107 clinics across Canada offering a form of restorative therapy for ED. We hope to contact every clinic offering these services in Canada by the end of the study period in August of 2023. Out of the identified clinics thus far, 72.9% are offering SWT and 49.5% are offering PRP treatment for ED, with 27.1% of clinics offering both. Our team was unable to identify any clinics providing stem cell therapy for ED. The average cost of SWT from the data we have collected thus far is $1701.92, ranging from $500 to $3500 for a six-treatment protocol that a majority of clinics opt for. Similarly, the average cost of PRP is $1458.22, ranging from $875 to $2000 per treatment. 15% of clinics reported a success rate for SWT, with a mean of 76.81% (ranges 50-100%). A singular clinic has quoted the success rate of PRP at 75% currently. Out of the 107 clinics contacted, 74 of them listed their ownership and staff. 12.2% of the clinics that listed their staff had a urologist present, 56.8% of them had a non-urologist MD employed on staff, and 31.1% did not have an MD present at the clinic. Conclusions Our study has so far found that Li-SWT and PRP for restorative therapies are being largely marketed directly-to-consumer with very little urologic intervention prior to treatment throughout Canada. The study highlights similar trends found in the US, taking advantage of the psychosocial burden faced by patients that suffer from ED, tacking on substantial financial costs for restorative therapies. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».