Shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction in Turkey, medically known as low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT or LiSWT), is a non-invasive treatment primarily investigated for men whose erectile dysfunction is related to impaired penile blood flow.
Unlike tablets such as sildenafil or tadalafil, which are taken to help produce an erection around the time of sexual activity, Li-ESWT is intended to act on the penile tissues themselves. Low-intensity mechanical pressure waves are applied to selected areas of the penis with the aim of stimulating biological responses associated with vascular repair and improving erectile function.
However, Li-ESWT should not be presented as a guaranteed cure for erectile dysfunction.
The best available evidence suggests that some men—particularly those with mild vasculogenic erectile dysfunction—may experience an improvement in erectile function. At the same time, results vary considerably between patients, devices and treatment protocols, and international urological organisations do not all interpret the available evidence in exactly the same way.
Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy uses controlled mechanical pressure waves generated outside the body and transmitted into penile tissue.
The term “low intensity” is important.
Li-ESWT for erectile dysfunction should not be confused with the much higher-energy shockwave treatments historically used to fragment urinary stones.
It should also not automatically be equated with every device marketed as “acoustic wave,” “wave therapy” or “ED shockwave treatment.”
The objective of Li-ESWT is not to mechanically force blood into the penis during the treatment session. Instead, the therapy is being studied for its ability to trigger biological responses within vascular and erectile tissues that may improve erectile function over time.
This also explains why patients should not expect an immediate erection simply because a session has been completed.
The most important points patients should understand are:
Current EAU guidance reports that Li-SWT can produce a mild improvement in erectile function in vasculogenic ED, but the recommendation remains weak.
To understand who may benefit from shockwave therapy, it is first necessary to understand vasculogenic ED.
An erection depends heavily on adequate arterial blood flow into the corpora cavernosa—the erectile chambers inside the penis.
When the arteries supplying the penis or the small vessels within erectile tissue are unable to deliver sufficient blood, erections may become weaker, slower to develop or difficult to maintain.
Vascular erectile dysfunction is more common in men with conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking-related vascular damage, obesity and cardiovascular disease.
For this reason, erectile dysfunction can sometimes be more than a sexual problem.
In some men, it may be an early sign of wider vascular disease.
Treating ED should therefore not begin and end with the penis. Cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors should also be considered.
The exact biological mechanism of Li-ESWT in humans has not been completely established.
The proposed mechanism involves controlled mechanical stimulation of penile tissues.
Experimental and clinical research suggests that this stimulation may activate biological pathways involved in angiogenesis, vascular signalling, endothelial function and tissue repair.
In simple terms, the intention is to improve the environment in which penile blood vessels function.
This is very different from claiming that shockwaves simply “open blocked arteries.”
Li-ESWT does not physically remove atherosclerotic plaques from penile arteries in the way an angioplasty procedure might mechanically treat a coronary artery.
Instead, any benefit appears to be related to biological responses within vascular tissue.
Some studies have demonstrated improvements in penile haemodynamic parameters after Li-ESWT, although the EAU notes that the clinical meaning of these vascular changes is still not completely clear.
One of the proposed biological effects of Li-ESWT is stimulation of angiogenic pathways, meaning pathways involved in the development and remodelling of small blood vessels.
This theory is one reason shockwave therapy has attracted attention as a potential restorative treatment rather than merely another method of producing temporary erections.
However, the phrase “Li-ESWT creates new blood vessels” can sound more certain than the evidence allows.
Laboratory and animal studies provide biological support for angiogenesis, and clinical studies suggest improvements in erectile function in some men. But we cannot look at an individual patient after treatment and simply state that a specific number of new penile vessels has developed.
Clinical success should be judged by meaningful improvements in erection quality—not by marketing descriptions of microscopic mechanisms.
Li-ESWT is often grouped under the term restorative or regenerative therapies for erectile dysfunction.
That classification reflects the proposed aim of improving tissue function rather than simply producing a temporary erection.
However, “regenerative” should not be interpreted as meaning that Li-ESWT can reconstruct severely damaged erectile tissue, reverse every cause of ED or return the penis to its condition decades earlier.
The evidence is much more modest.
The European Association of Urology recognises a potential clinical role in selected vasculogenic patients, while organisations including the American Urological Association and Sexual Medicine Society of North America have historically taken a more cautious position and regard shockwave therapy for ED as investigational.
This difference between professional organisations is important for patients to understand.
Patient selection is probably more important than simply choosing a treatment device.
Current EAU guidance suggests considering low-intensity shockwave therapy in men with mild vasculogenic erectile dysfunction, well-informed patients who do not wish to use or are not suitable for oral vasoactive medication, and men with vasculogenic ED who respond poorly to PDE5 inhibitors.
In practice, this means the ideal candidate is not simply:
“Any man with erectile dysfunction.”
The first question should be:
Why does this man have erectile dysfunction?
A patient with mild arterial insufficiency is biologically very different from someone whose erections have been lost because of severe nerve damage, advanced cavernosal fibrosis or major pelvic trauma.
Li-ESWT may be less predictable in severe or predominantly non-vascular erectile dysfunction.
For example, a man with advanced erectile tissue fibrosis or major neurological injury may have a fundamentally different problem from a patient with early vascular ED.
Similarly, if erectile dysfunction is mainly caused by severe hormonal deficiency, psychological factors or medication side effects, directing shockwaves at the penis does not correct the primary cause.
This is why shockwave treatment should follow a diagnosis rather than replace one.
The severity of ED, duration of symptoms, cardiovascular risk profile, erectile response to PDE5 inhibitors and underlying cause should all influence treatment planning.
Not every patient requires penile Doppler ultrasound before shockwave therapy, and Li-ESWT does not need to be performed continuously under Doppler ultrasound guidance.
This is an important correction to a commonly repeated claim.
Penile Doppler ultrasound can be particularly useful when the vascular cause of erectile dysfunction needs to be clarified. It can assess penile arterial inflow and other haemodynamic parameters following pharmacologically induced erection.
The EAU notes that duplex ultrasound may help tailor treatment in men being considered for Li-SWT, particularly when vasculogenic ED is suspected. However, it is not described as a mandatory real-time guidance system for every shockwave pulse.
At our practice, investigations are selected according to the patient's history, examination findings and severity of erectile dysfunction rather than automatically applying the same test to every patient.
This is one of the most important issues when comparing clinics offering shockwave therapy for ED.
Not every machine that produces a tapping sensation is delivering the same type of energy.
Most clinical trials supporting Li-ESWT have used devices capable of generating focused shockwaves through electrohydraulic, electromagnetic or piezoelectric technology.
Radial pressure-wave devices work differently. Their energy distribution and tissue penetration are not the same as true focused shockwave systems.
The EAU specifically notes that a randomised controlled trial using radial wave therapy found no significant difference in erectile-function outcomes compared with placebo.
Therefore, when comparing treatments, patients should not simply ask:
“Do you offer shockwave therapy?”
They should understand which technology is actually being used.
The treatment is generally performed in an outpatient clinical setting.
The patient lies comfortably while coupling gel is applied to the penis to allow efficient transmission of shockwaves from the treatment head into the tissues.
The applicator is then positioned at predetermined areas of the penile shaft and, depending on the device and protocol, near the crura at the base of the penis.
Low-intensity shockwaves are delivered according to the selected treatment parameters.
There are no surgical incisions.
There are no penile filler injections.
In most men, anaesthesia is not necessary.
A treatment session usually takes a relatively short period of time, although exact duration depends on the device, pulse number and protocol.
There is currently no universally accepted Li-ESWT protocol.
This is one of the most important limitations of the evidence.
Published clinical trials have used different:
treatment schedules, numbers of sessions, numbers of pulses, energy flux densities, devices and anatomical application patterns.
Six-session regimens are common in clinical studies, while other protocols involve more sessions over several weeks.
This variability means that stating:
“Every patient needs exactly 6 treatments”
or:
“12 sessions are scientifically proven to be best”
would be too definitive.
A 2026 meta-analysis of 19 randomised trials found that frequency and total pulse number may influence response but concluded that no definitive superior treatment regimen can currently be established.
This lack of protocol standardisation is one reason results differ between studies.
Most patients tolerate low-intensity shockwave therapy well.
The treatment usually produces a repetitive tapping or pulsating sensation against the penile tissues.
Some men may notice temporary sensitivity or mild discomfort, particularly when the applicator is positioned over certain areas.
Significant pain is not expected during properly performed low-intensity therapy.
One reason Li-ESWT is attractive to many patients is that it generally does not require anaesthesia, surgery or recovery from an incision.
There is usually very little downtime.
Most patients can walk, work and continue ordinary daily activities immediately after treatment.
Unlike penile surgery or injectable procedures, there is generally no surgical wound that needs to heal.
Sexual activity usually does not need to be stopped simply because Li-ESWT has been performed, unless the physician recommends otherwise because of another condition.
A patient should nevertheless contact his physician if unexpected significant penile pain, swelling, bruising or other unusual symptoms develop.
This question deserves a more careful answer than simply quoting a “success rate.”
Studies and meta-analyses have often shown statistically significant improvements in measures such as the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Erection Hardness Score (EHS).
The EAU reports that studies generally suggest an improvement particularly among men with mild vasculogenic ED, with reported satisfactory improvement rates varying widely between approximately 40% and 80%.
But this wide range itself tells us something important:
There is no universal 70% or 80% success rate that applies to every patient.
Different studies use different definitions of success, devices, protocols and patient groups.
A 2025 Cochrane systematic review analysed 21 randomised controlled trials involving 1,357 men.
The review concluded that LiSWT may produce a small improvement in erectile function in the short term, but the average change may not always reach the threshold considered clinically important for an individual man.
The review also found that erectile function may improve in longer-term follow-up, but confidence in the evidence remained low because of inconsistency, imprecision and methodological limitations.
Importantly, treatment-related adverse events were not significantly increased compared with sham treatment in the analysed trials.
This provides a much more realistic summary than saying:
“Shockwave therapy works in 70% of patients.”
Li-ESWT research is unusually heterogeneous.
Different trials have used different:
devices, energy levels, pulse numbers, treatment schedules, anatomical application points, patient groups and definitions of treatment success.
Some studies include men with mild ED, while others include more severe disease.
Some allow PDE5 inhibitors during follow-up; others do not.
Some use focused shockwaves, while others use technologies that may not be biologically equivalent.
This makes it difficult to compare every study directly.
A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials concluded that although statistically significant improvements were reported, many studies failed to achieve the minimum clinically important difference. The authors therefore concluded that the true clinical magnitude of benefit remains uncertain.
This uncertainty should be explained to patients before treatment.
Li-ESWT should not be judged immediately after the first treatment session.
If improvement occurs, it tends to develop gradually.
EAU-reviewed evidence suggests that clinical effects may begin to become noticeable approximately one to three months after completion of treatment.
This delayed response is consistent with the proposed mechanism: shockwave therapy is intended to influence tissue biology rather than directly create an erection during the session.
Patients should therefore be cautious about clinics promising dramatic results after the first application.
Durability varies between patients.
Some studies suggest that improvements can persist for a year or longer, but the effect may gradually decline with time.
EAU evidence indicates that benefit can diminish progressively after treatment, although improvements have been detected in selected studies several years later.
One randomised sham-controlled study evaluating longer-term outcomes found improvement at 12 and 24 months, with treatment effects declining between years two and three.
This means the common statement:
“Shockwave lasts exactly 6–12 months”
is too simplistic.
There is no fixed expiry date.
Possibly, in selected patients.
Some men with vasculogenic ED who respond inadequately to PDE5 inhibitors may achieve improved erectile function following Li-ESWT.
The aim may be to improve spontaneous erectile capacity or improve responsiveness to oral medication.
EAU guidance specifically includes vasculogenic ED patients who are poor responders to PDE5 inhibitors among the groups in whom Li-SWT may be considered.
However, treatment should not be sold with a guarantee that a patient will permanently stop sildenafil, tadalafil or other ED medications.
Some men continue to achieve their best erections when Li-ESWT is combined with PDE5 inhibitors.
Yes, combination treatment has been investigated.
Randomised studies referenced by the EAU suggest that Li-SWT combined with daily tadalafil may provide better results than certain single-treatment approaches in selected patients.
This does not mean every patient should automatically receive daily tadalafil.
Medication choice depends on cardiovascular status, concurrent medication, previous response, side effects and the individual ED treatment plan.
Li-ESWT should therefore be considered as one component of erectile dysfunction management rather than an isolated treatment that replaces every other therapy.
Diabetes is a major cause of erectile dysfunction because it can damage both penile blood vessels and nerves.
Men with diabetes may therefore have a combination of vascular and neurogenic ED.
Li-ESWT may be considered in selected diabetic men, particularly when a significant vasculogenic component exists.
However, advanced diabetes-related erectile dysfunction may involve substantial vascular, neurological and cavernosal damage. Treatment response can therefore be less predictable than in a patient with mild isolated vascular ED.
Blood glucose control, cardiovascular risk, medications and other diabetes complications remain important parts of treatment.
Shockwave therapy does not replace good diabetes management.
This is an area of ongoing research.
Following radical prostatectomy, erectile dysfunction commonly has an important neurovascular component.
The EAU notes that meta-analyses suggest Li-ESWT may improve early erectile-function recovery as part of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy, but the level of evidence is low and results should be interpreted cautiously.
It is therefore premature to describe Li-ESWT as a proven method of “regenerating penile nerves” after prostate cancer surgery.
Post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction should be managed as part of a broader penile rehabilitation plan.
Li-ESWT should not be presented as a treatment that breaks Peyronie’s plaques or straightens the penis.
This is a major misconception.
The European Association of Urology reports that shockwave therapy may help reduce penile pain during the active phase of Peyronie’s disease, but randomised trials have not demonstrated meaningful improvement in penile curvature or plaque size.
Therefore:
Shockwave therapy may have a role in pain management, but it should not be promised as a method of eliminating Peyronie’s plaque or correcting curvature.
If Peyronie’s disease is accompanied by erectile dysfunction, the ED and curvature should each be assessed separately.
Li-ESWT and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are both sometimes marketed as “regenerative” treatments, but they are not supported by the same level of evidence.
The EAU currently provides a weak recommendation for Li-SWT in selected vasculogenic ED patients.
For intracavernosal PRP, the EAU states that available evidence is still insufficient to make a clinical recommendation.
This distinction is important.
Two treatments being marketed under the same “regenerative” label does not mean they have equal scientific support.
PDE5 inhibitors such as sildenafil and tadalafil remain established first-line pharmacological therapies for erectile dysfunction.
They help amplify the normal nitric oxide pathway during sexual stimulation and are taken around the time of sexual activity or, in selected cases, daily.
Li-ESWT has a different objective.
Rather than temporarily facilitating the erectile response, it is intended to influence vascular function over time.
However, this does not make Li-ESWT automatically “better” than medication.
PDE5 inhibitors have substantially more established evidence and predictable clinical efficacy.
Shockwave therapy may be considered in selected patients based on the underlying cause of ED, treatment goals and previous response.
Intracavernosal injection therapy works very differently.
Medication such as alprostadil is injected directly into the penis and can produce an erection within a relatively short period of time.
Li-ESWT does not work on demand.
Its potential benefit develops gradually over a course of treatment.
Injection therapy is therefore a highly effective method for producing erections, whereas Li-ESWT is intended to modify underlying erectile function in selected patients.
One treatment should not be described as simply replacing the other.
A penile prosthesis is a surgical solution for men with severe erectile dysfunction, particularly when conservative treatments have failed or when the patient prefers a definitive implant-based solution.
Li-ESWT is at the opposite end of the invasiveness spectrum.
It is non-surgical and is most relevant to selected men with a potentially modifiable vascular component.
A man with severe, longstanding erectile dysfunction and extensive cavernosal fibrosis may be a poor candidate for repeated regenerative therapies but an appropriate candidate for a penile prosthesis.
This is why determining the severity and cause of ED is more important than simply choosing the least invasive treatment.
Li-ESWT has generally been well tolerated in clinical studies.
Possible temporary effects include mild discomfort, local sensitivity, minor redness or bruising.
The 2025 Cochrane review found little to no difference in treatment-related adverse events between LiSWT and sham treatment, although the overall certainty of evidence was low.
Serious complications appear uncommon in published trials.
Nevertheless, treatment should still be performed after appropriate medical assessment rather than being considered a completely risk-free cosmetic service.
There is no single contraindication list that can replace individual medical assessment.
Active infection, significant untreated penile disease, relevant bleeding disorders or anticoagulant use may influence treatment planning.
The more important issue is often not whether treatment is technically possible, but whether it is likely to help.
For example, applying Li-ESWT to a man whose ED is primarily psychological, hormonal or advanced neurogenic disease may expose him to cost and repeated treatment without addressing the main cause.
Correct diagnosis is therefore part of treatment safety.
Men considering shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction in Ankara, Turkey should first undergo a urological and andrological evaluation.
At the evaluation with Prof. Dr. Levent Peşkircioğlu, the aim is not simply to determine whether a patient “can have shockwave therapy.”
The more important question is whether the patient's type of erectile dysfunction is one that may reasonably respond to Li-ESWT.
Assessment may include medical and sexual history, cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors, medication use, erectile-function severity, previous ED treatments and physical examination.
Penile Doppler ultrasound may be used when a more detailed assessment of penile vascular function is clinically useful.
This approach helps distinguish a potentially suitable vasculogenic ED patient from someone who may achieve better results with another treatment.
The term “shockwave therapy” is widely used in Turkey and internationally.
However, treatment advertisements do not always make it clear which technology is being used.
For a patient comparing ED shockwave therapy in Turkey, important questions include which type of shockwave generator is being used, whether the device delivers focused shockwaves or radial pressure waves, what treatment protocol is planned and why the physician believes the patient is an appropriate candidate.
The machine name alone is not enough.
The biological problem being treated and the evidence supporting the chosen technology matter more.
The cost of shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction in Turkey in 2026 can vary according to the device, number of sessions, clinic or hospital setting and whether additional diagnostic evaluation is required.
Because Li-ESWT is usually delivered as a course rather than a single treatment, patients should clarify whether a quoted price refers to:
one session or the complete treatment programme.
Price should also not be the only point of comparison.
A cheaper treatment using a fundamentally different radial pressure-wave device should not automatically be considered equivalent to a treatment protocol using focused Li-ESWT technology.
Similarly, a larger number of sessions does not automatically mean that a protocol is scientifically superior.
The most realistic expectation is possible improvement—not guaranteed normal erectile function.
A suitable patient may notice stronger erections, better erection maintenance or improved response to medication.
Another patient may notice only a modest difference.
Some patients may not achieve a clinically meaningful benefit.
That variability should be discussed before treatment rather than explained only after a poor response.
Modern evidence supports cautious optimism in selected vasculogenic patients, but not exaggerated promises.
Li-ESWT is one of the most interesting developments in non-surgical erectile dysfunction treatment because it aims to influence the underlying penile vascular environment rather than simply create a temporary erection.
But that potential has also led to over-marketing.
Not every acoustic device is equivalent.
Not every patient with erectile dysfunction is a candidate.
More sessions do not necessarily mean a better result.
And a statistically significant improvement in a research study does not always translate into a dramatic clinical change for every man.
For Prof. Dr. Levent Peşkircioğlu, Li-ESWT should therefore begin with the same question as every erectile dysfunction treatment:
What is causing this patient’s erectile dysfunction?
Only after answering that question can we decide whether shockwave therapy, medication, injection treatment, vacuum therapy, penile prosthesis surgery or another approach is the more appropriate option.
Li-ESWT stands for Low-Intensity Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy. The abbreviation LiSWT or LI-SWT is also frequently used in scientific literature.
The terms are often used interchangeably, but for erectile dysfunction the more precise term is low-intensity shockwave therapy. ESWT by itself is a broad term also used in other areas of medicine.
It should not be described as a guaranteed permanent cure. Some men achieve clinically useful improvement, while others experience modest or no benefit. Durability also varies.
The strongest evidence is in selected men with mild vasculogenic erectile dysfunction, including some patients who respond inadequately to PDE5 inhibitors.
There is no universally established ideal protocol. Six-session courses are common in research and clinical practice, but other schedules are also used. The scientific literature remains heterogeneous.
Improvement, when it occurs, is usually gradual. Clinical effects may become more apparent during the first one to three months following treatment rather than immediately after a session.
Most men describe a tapping or pulsating sensation. Low-intensity treatment is generally well tolerated and typically does not require anaesthesia.
Usually very little. Most patients can continue ordinary activities after a session.
Some clinical studies have shown changes in penile haemodynamic measurements, and improved vascular function is one of the proposed mechanisms. However, the relationship between Doppler changes and individual clinical improvement remains incompletely defined.
Not every patient does. Penile Doppler can be useful when vascular ED needs to be characterised more precisely or when the result may influence treatment planning.
Routine Li-ESWT sessions do not need to be continuously performed under Penile Doppler ultrasound guidance. Doppler is a diagnostic tool rather than a mandatory real-time targeting system for every treatment session.
No. Li-ESWT should not be described as mechanically breaking up penile arterial plaques. Its proposed effects involve biological vascular and tissue responses.
ESWT may reduce penile pain during the active phase of Peyronie’s disease, but current evidence does not show meaningful improvement in plaque size or penile curvature.
There is some evidence suggesting a possible role in erectile-function rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy, but the evidence is currently low quality and should be interpreted cautiously.
They work in different ways. PDE5 inhibitors are established pharmacological treatments with stronger evidence. Li-ESWT may be considered in selected vasculogenic patients and can sometimes be combined with PDE5 inhibitors.
Some patients may require less medication or respond better to PDE5 inhibitors after treatment, but stopping medication cannot be guaranteed.
Not necessarily. Radial pressure waves and focused shockwaves differ physically and in tissue penetration. Most supportive ED evidence involves focused shockwave systems, and the EAU notes a randomised radial-wave trial that did not outperform placebo.
It may be considered in selected diabetic men, particularly when vascular dysfunction is an important component of ED. However, advanced diabetic ED may also involve significant nerve and tissue damage, which can make results less predictable.
Other established erectile dysfunction treatments remain available, including PDE5 inhibitors, vacuum erection devices, intracavernosal injections and, in appropriately selected severe cases, penile prosthesis surgery.
Clinical trials and meta-analyses demonstrate a signal of benefit, particularly in vasculogenic ED, but uncertainty remains regarding the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit and the ideal protocol. The EAU gives a weak recommendation in selected patients, while AUA and SMSNA positions remain more conservative.
Prof. Dr. Levent PeşkircioğluUrology & Andrology
My husband underwent prostate surgery on Thursday. We would like to sincerely thank Dr. Levent and Dr. Alev, the anesthesiologist, as well as all the nurses at the hospital, especially Nur{...}
09 October 2025For one year, I had been searching for a good doctor. During this period, I took my son to two different public hospitals, but we did not get any positive results. While doing research on{...}
07 June 2025We visited many supposedly top doctors in both private and university hospitals for my husband’s urinary tract obstruction. Unfortunately, the procedures we underwent were short-term and l{...}
07 April 2024