(232) The Use of Restorative Therapies for Erectile Dysfunction: A Review of the Current Canadian Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".