FrankTalk.org

barrosa wrote:I lost 2k with that.
It didnt work.
Dont waste money!

When did you have your shockwave treatment? I have read a lot about it and the procedure has changed. The first patients did all get the same kind of treatment but nowadays they customize it based on the patients case. I did have the treatment 4 years ago with poor results. I might take another shot of it if there is positive feedback from the new patients.

barrosa wrote:I lost 2k with that.

It didnt work.

Dont waste money!

I am the same age as you, do not have venous leak and can confirm that SWT did nothing for me as well.

There was discomfort and even some pain while the treatment was ongoing. I have read that most of these devices are actually acoustic wave devices and emitting stronger waves (if a gel was applied to your penis- that would mead acoustic waves, as it numbs the pain).

In my opinion, it is a very new and highly experimental area at best.

I have mild venous leak. The treatments were not uncomfortable to me, but the effects of “angiogenesis” did not sustain. My personal experience is this therapy, if you want to call it that, only drained my bank account…..to me it’s “snake oil” treatment.
But then that’s just my experience. It may work on guys that do not have venous leak but some other type of atherosclerosis vessel disease process going on in penis.

Mazzio wrote:

barrosa wrote:I lost 2k with that.
It didnt work.
Dont waste money!

When did you have your shockwave treatment? I have read a lot about it and the procedure has changed. The first patients did all get the same kind of treatment but nowadays they customize it based on the patients case. I did have the treatment 4 years ago with poor results. I might take another shot of it if there is positive feedback from the new patients.

I did it two years ago more or less couple of months before my surgery

Since microtrauma to the corpora is one source of scarring and fibrosis, I guess I don’t understand how the kind of microtrauma caused by shockwaves is supposed to have the opposite outcome.

Sure, trauma cause temporary growth of new blood vessels, but those normally form as a temporary intermediate step resulting in the formation of a scar and go away for most wounds when the scar matures. Maybe something is different here but I don’t see why it would be.

Maybe if they are focused on specific stricture or lump of scar tissue to disrupt it and cause the body to resorb it that might make sense, but is that what they claim to be doing?

seekonk wrote:
Maybe if they are focused on specific stricture or lump of scar tissue to disrupt it and cause the body to resorb it that might make sense, but is that what they claim to be doing?

That's what I thought it was for. I thought the idea was to locate a plaque and blast and break it up.

Waste of $3K from my bank account with no improvement.

PRP wasn't any better.