ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Low-intensity shockwave therapy (Li-SWT) can improve bladder function through enhancement of angiogenesis and nerve regeneration and suppression of inflammation and

overactivity. In this trial, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Li-SWT on persistent storage symptoms after transurethral surgery (TUS) for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS

Between July 2020 and July 2022, 137 patients with persistent storage symptoms; urgency episodes/24 h ≥ 1 and daytime frequency ≥8, for at least three months after TUS for BPO were randomly

allocated to Li-SWT versus sham versus solifenacin 10 mg/day in 3:1:1 ratio. The primary end point was the percent reduction from baseline in overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS) at

Li-SWT compared to sham (−55% versus −11%), and it was comparable between Li-SWT and solifenacin-10 (−55% versus −60%). Li-SWT achieved significant improvement like solifenacin-10 in 3-day

voiding diary parameters and QoL score at 3-month follow-up. This improvement remained comparable between Li-SWT and solifenacin-10 at 6-month follow-up. No adverse effects related to Li-SWT

were noted apart from tolerable pain during the procedure. Solifenacin-10 was associated with bothersome adverse effects in 73% of the patients with 11.5% discontinuation rate. CONCLUSIONS

Li-SWT ameliorates persistent storage symptoms and promotes QoL after TUS for BPO, with comparable efficacy and better tolerance compared to solifenacin. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY

OTHERS EVALUATION OF A LOW-INTENSITY SHOCKWAVE THERAPY FOR CHRONIC PROSTATITIS TYPE IIIB/CHRONIC PELVIC PAIN SYNDROME: A DOUBLE-BLIND RANDOMIZED SHAM-CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL Article 28

September 2020 SHORT TERM RESULTS AFTER MINIMALLY INVASIVE TREATMENTS FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC ENLARGEMENT: THE FIRST RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING TRANSPERINEAL LASER ABLATION AND WATER VAPOR

ABLATION Article 25 April 2025 FEASIBILITY AND SAFETY STUDY OF THE FLOSTENT™ SYSTEM (RAPID-I) Article Open access 21 May 2025 INTRODUCTION Benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) is a common

cause of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in aging men [1]. LUTS, particularly storage symptoms, interfere with daily activities and negatively impact quality of life (QoL) [2]. After BPO

surgery, 20–30% of patients still have persistent storage symptoms [3, 4]. Choi et al. found that persistent storage symptoms after transurethral resection of the prostate was significantly

correlated to old age, small bladder capacity and poor detrusor contractility [3]. Mitterberger et al. reported that 30% of patients who presented with preoperative detrusor overactivity

(DO) had persistent DO after transurethral resection of the prostate and those patients had reduced bladder perfusion [5]. The pathophysiology of persistent storage symptoms after BPO

surgery remains unclear. It may be caused by bladder ischemia and denervation produced by long-standing BPO [5, 6] or it may be related to other factors such as aging [3, 7], chronic

inflammation [8] or subtle neurological disorder. Treatment with muscarinic receptor antagonists (MRAs) or ß3-agonizts is a common practice for storage LUTS after BPO surgery. However, these

medications are associated with adverse effects such as dry mouth, constipation and blurred vision after using MRAs or dizziness and blood pressure changes after using ß3-agonizts [9].

After failure of non-invasive treatment, intravesical botulinum toxin-A injection might be considered. However, it may cause urinary tract infection and urine retention, and its effect

decreases over time with the need of repeated injection [10]. Low-intensity shockwave therapy (Li-SWT) is a novel non-invasive treatment that has a beneficial effect in improvement of

bladder function through induction of angiogenesis, restoration of nerve-ending integrity, suppression of DO and inhibition of inflammatory reactions [11, 12]. Moreover, it has been applied

to the penis for erectile dysfunction and to the perineum for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome with encouraging results [13, 14]. Recent studies reported that Li-SWT had an

important role in improvement of LUTS in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia [15] and amelioration of overactive bladder symptoms (OABS) in patients with overactive bladder (OAB)

[16]. Based on the forementioned studies, it has been proposed that Li-SWT can offer a benefit in improvement of persistent storage symptoms after BPO surgery. The aim of the current study

was to assess the efficacy of Li-SWT for control of persistent storage symptoms after transurethral surgery (TUS) for BPO compared to sham treatment and MRAs (solifenacin). MATERIALS AND

METHODS STUDY DESIGN AND ENROLLMENT A randomized controlled trial comparing Li-SWT versus sham versus solifenacin 10 mg was proposed and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID; NCT04437108

(Institutional Review Board approval code: MD.20.06.338). It was conducted in a tertiary care center. Between July 2020 and July 2022, eligible patients were asked to participate in this

trial after signing an informed consent form. Patients with persistent storage symptoms for at least three months following TUS for BPO were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Patients were eligible once they have urgency episodes/24 h ≥ 1 and daytime frequency ≥8, as well as successful relief of bladder outlet obstruction proved mainly by baseline pressure-flow

study. Cystometrogram was done to all patients at baseline, however out-patient urethrocystoscopy was performed when pressure-flow study revealed equivocal voiding pattern or when

pressure-flow study could not be interpreted due to inability of the patient to void with presence of urodynamic urethral catheter. Patients who had any of the following were excluded:

untreated urinary tract infection, neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (Hemoglobin A1c > 6.8), psychogenic disorder, previous pelvic irradiation,

prostate or bladder cancer, coagulation disorder, narrow-angle glaucoma, or post-voiding residual urine (PVR) > 150 ml. RANDOMIZATION Patients were randomly allocated to Li-SWT (group 1)

versus sham (group 2) versus solifenacin 10 mg/day (group 3) in 3:1:1 ratio. In group 1, patients were treated by 8-weekly sessions of Li-SWT. This group was divided into three subgroups;

suprapubic, perineal and combined, according to the approach through which Li-SWT was applied. In group 2, patients were treated by 8-weekly sessions of sham treatment under conditions like

group 1, but with the applicator of the shockwave (SW) device being turned off. Patients in Li-SWT and sham groups were blinded to given treatment. The investigators performed randomization

using computer-generated random tables. INTERVENTION Li-SWT was conducted using Dornier AR2 SW device (Dornier MedTech, Wessling, Germany) with a focused SW source. The device was operated

by a well-trained urologist. A commercially used gel for sonography was applied to the targeted region. In suprapubic approach, the bladder was scanned by ultrasound to ensure that it was

filled with approximately half of the maximum cystometric capacity measured by baseline cystometrogram, and the patient was asked to lie in flat supine position. The applicator was placed on

suprapubic region at three horizontal sites, 2 cm from each other and two fingerbreadths above the pubic bone. In perineal approach, the patient was asked to empty the bladder and lie in

lithotomy position. The applicator was placed on perineal region at three vertical sites, 2 cm apart from each other. Every patient received 3000 shocks/session; 1000 shocks/site in

suprapubic or perineal approach, or 1500 suprapubic shocks (500 shocks/site) followed by another 1500 perineal shocks (500 shocks/site) in combined approach, with energy flux density of 0.12

 mJ/mm² and frequency of 4 Hz. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary endpoint was defined as the percent reduction from baseline in the total overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS) at 3-month

follow-up; (3-month OABSS minus baseline OABSS)/ baseline OABSS. The secondary outcome measures included percent of responders in each arm at 3-month follow-up. Three points reduction in the

total OABSS was determined as the minimal threshold for a meaningful change [17]. Responders were defined as patients who achieved reduction in the total OABSS ≥ 3 at 3-month follow-up.

Other outcome measures included the numerical change from baseline in OABSS (total score and sub-scores), 3-day voiding diary parameters, international prostate symptom score-storage domain

(IPSS-S), IPSS-QoL score, maximum flow rate (Qmax) and PVR at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, changes in OABSS and urodynamic parameters at 6-month follow-up among responders were compared.

Also, subgroup analysis was interpreted. Treatment-related adverse effects were reported. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0–10 was used for pain evaluation during SW sessions.

Treatment failure was considered in patients who failed to achieve reduction in the total OABSS ≥ 3 at 3-month follow-up (non-responders) and patients who discontinued treatment due to

intolerable adverse effects. Those patients were offered other treatment options as Li-SWT, solifenacin 10 mg or mirabegron. Nevertheless, this study followed the intention-to-treat

analysis. SAMPLE SIZE AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The G-power program (University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany) was used to calculate the sample size. Liu et al. showed that solifenacin

5–10 mg/day could achieve >50% reduction from baseline in OABSS at 3-month follow-up in OAB patients [18]. Our hypothesis is that Li-SWT could achieve 50% reduction in OABSS compared to

sham. Considering 80% power and α-error probability of 0.05, a sample size of 44 patients (22 patients in each group) was estimated, using a priori test with an effect-size calculation of

0.5 for the x2 test. A third group of solifenacin treatment was added as a standard of care (22 patients). Three Li-SWT sub-groups were enrolled as the approach of SW delivery to the bladder

is not yet standardized (22 patients in each sub-group). Allowing for 20% drop-out rate, a final number of 135 patients (81: 27: 27) was estimated. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS

V21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Between-group analysis was done using Chi-Square test, fisher’s exact test, one-way ANOVA test, independent sample t-test, Kruskal–wallis H test or

Mann–Whitney U test. Within-group analysis was performed using paired sample t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test or Chi-Square test. _P_ value < 0.05 was considered as the cut-off for

statistically significant difference. RESULTS Between July 2020 and July 2022, 137 patients were randomly allocated to study groups, as shown in the study’s flow chart (Fig. 1). Patient

demographics and peri-operative data of TUS were comparable between study groups (Table 1). There were no significant differences between study groups in the baseline OABSS, 3-day voiding

dairy, IPSS-S, QoL score, Qmax, PVR and urodynamic parameters (Tables 2 and 3 and Fig. 2). The percent reduction from baseline in the total OABSS at 3-month follow-up (primary end point) was

significantly higher in Li-SWT group compared to sham group (−55% versus −11%, _P_ = 0.001), and it was not significantly different between Li-SWT and solifenacin groups (−55% versus −60%,

_P_ = 0.340). The percent of responders at 3-month follow-up was 80.3%, 23.8% and 73.1% in Li-SWT, sham and solifenacin groups respectively (P1; Li-SWT versus sham = 0.001, P2; Li-SWT versus

solifenacin = 0.442). At 3-month follow-up, Li-SWT group achieved better improvement compared to sham group and similar improvement compared to solifenacin group in the change of total

OABSS and its frequency, urgency and urgency incontinence sub-scores, as well as average voided volume/micturition, daytime frequency, urgency episodes/24 h, urgency incontinence episodes/24

 h, IPSS-S and QoL score. However, there was no significant difference between study groups in nocturia, Qmax and PVR (Table 2 and Fig. 2). At 6-month follow-up, this efficacy remained

comparable between responders in Li-SWT and solifenacin groups. The median percent change from baseline in the total OABSS at 6-month follow-up was −60% in Li-SWT group versus −57% in

solifenacin group (_P_ = 0.8). Urodynamic analysis revealed significant improvement in cystometric capacity at first sensation of filling among responders in Li-SWT and solifenacin groups

(_P_ < 0.05), and significant improvement in DO among responders in Li-SWT group (_P_ = 0.03) (Table 3). TREATMENT SAFETY No adverse effects related to Li-SWT were noted apart from local

pain during the procedure. The overall VAS (mean ± SD) was 4.22 ± 1.02. Treatment with solifenacin 10 mg was associated with MRAs’ adverse effects in 73% of the patients. Only three patients

(11.5%) could not tolerate adverse effects with subsequent discontinuation of treatment. The most common adverse effect was dry mouth (46.2%). SUBGROUP ANALYSIS The numbers of patients

treated with Li-SWT through suprapubic, perineal and combined approaches were 27, 25 and 27 patients respectively. The three subgroups had comparable baseline evaluation. At 3-month

follow-up, the percent reduction from baseline in the total OABSS (primary end point) was −45, −61 and −53% in suprapubic, perineal and combined subgroups respectively. The difference was

significant in all subgroups compared to sham and it was significant favouring perineal against suprapubic subgroup (_P_ = 0.020). Otherwise, all other outcome measures were comparable

between subgroups. VAS (mean ± SD) was 3.59 ± 0.84, 4.84 ± 1.07 and 4.26 ± 0.76 in suprapubic, perineal and combined subgroups respectively with significantly higher VAS in perineal and

combined subgroups compared to suprapubic subgroup (_P_ = 0.001 & 0.023 respectively). DISCUSSION After BPO surgery, 20–30% of patients still have persistent storage symptoms [3, 4].

MRAs or ß3-agonizts are the main treatment line, however these medications may result in bothersome adverse effects that might affect patients‘ compliance [9]. Therefore, an alternative and

effective treatment option that lacks those adverse effects would be valuable tool. Li-SWT is a non-invasive treatment which will likely improve bladder function through angiogenesis, nerve

regeneration and suppression of inflammation [11, 12]. There are some clinical studies that used Li-SWT to treat LUTS [19]. However, no study has been conducted using Li-SWT to treat post

prostatectomy storage symptoms. In 2019, Zhang et al. used radial extracorporeal SW therapy through perineal approach to treat patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia [15]. The patients

received 2000 shocks, once/week for 8 weeks, at two bar and frequency of 10 Hz. The study revealed significant improvement compared to baseline in IPSS and QoL score at 4 weeks and became

sustained through the 3-month follow-up. In 2021, Lu et al. compared the effect of 8-weekly sessions of Li-SWT versus sham on females with OAB [16]. Focused SWs were applied through

suprapubic approach using 3000 shocks/session, energy flux density of 0.25 mJ/mm2 and frequency of 3 Hz. The authors found that Li-SWT achieved significant improvement in OABSS, daytime

frequency and QoL questionnaire at 4 weeks compared to sham and significant improvement in average voided volume/micturition, functional bladder capacity and all OABS at 8 weeks. This

improvement remained constant till 6 months after treatment. Herein, Li-SWT was associated with significant improvement in OABSS, daytime frequency, urgency, urgency incontinence, average

voided volume/micturition and QoL score compared to sham. The three approaches of Li-SWT had similar efficacy apart from significantly higher percent reduction in OABSS at 3-month follow-up

in perineal compared to suprapubic approach. Solifenacin improves persistent storage symptoms after prostatectomy [20, 21]. In the present study, solifenacin 10 mg improved all OABS apart

from nocturia, with comparable efficacy to Li-SWT. The dose of 10 mg was used because all included patients had tried initially different treatment regimens including solifenacin 5 mg. Two

weeks washout period was offered to all patients before randomization. Unlike previous studies [16, 22], there was no significant improvement in nocturia in Li-SWT and solifenacin groups in

the current study. However, Iselin et al. similarly showed that the use of oxybutynin early after transurethral resection of the prostate improved storage symptoms except for nocturia [23].

This might be secondary to the difference in study population and pathophysiology of nocturia [24]. In the current study, the change in OABSS was compared using both actual and percent

reduction from baseline, and the significance was similar in both. The primary end point was considered as the percent reduction in OABSS at 3-months resembling the study of Liu et al. [18]

that used it to express the effect of solifenacin in OAB patients. Unlike data of Zhang et al. [15] and Lu et al. [16], the current study revealed that Li-SWT had no effect on Qmax and PVR.

Nevertheless, the study of Zhang et al. was a non-randomized trial including patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and the effect on Qmax and PVR was assessed at 4 and 8 weeks only.

Along with the current study, a recent meta-analysis found that Li-SWT does not improve Qmax and PVR compared to sham in patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome [19]. Also, solifenacin

does not affect Qmax and PVR in OAB patients [25], and similar results were found in the present study. Considering urodynamic changes, the impact of Li-SWT and solifenacin on bladder

function was assessed among responders at 6-months. Both treatment modalities could increase cystometric capacity at first sensation of filling. Li-SWT resulted in significant decrease in

the percent of patients who had DO compared to baseline (19.6% versus 39.2%). The safety of Li-SWT was documented by previous studies [15, 16, 19] and confirmed by the present study. Zhang

et al_._ reported slight perineal pain after perineal application of radial extracorporeal SW therapy [15]. Also, the pain score in the present study was significantly higher in perineal and

combined approaches than suprapubic approach. This may be due to compression of the tissues against pelvic bones. Chapple et al_._ reported 27.7% dry mouth and 6.8% discontinuation rate

with solifenacin 10 mg [22], and it was 46.2% and 11.5% respectively in the current study. Up to date, there is no ideal treatment protocol for Li-SWT regarding application site, energy flux

density, number of shocks and sessions and time interval between sessions. Also, there were no reported difference among SW energy generators and handles [26]. Following this trial, the

combined approach including all the focal areas through perineal and suprapubic approaches was protocoled in our institute. This could maximize efficacy and reduce pain. Patients with post

prostatectomy persistent storage symptoms will be offered Li-SWT whenever they fail or experience adverse effects with bladder targeting medicines. Study’s limitations include the short-term

follow-up. Moreover, proper assessment of nocturia was not performed and QoL was evaluated by a single question rather than specific QoL questionnaires. Lack of evaluation of the cost

difference between the two treatment modalities is another limitation. Nevertheless, the present study is the first trial evaluating the efficacy of Li-SWT on persistent storage symptoms

after BPO surgery. Trying different approaches of Li-SWT provided valuable information and the use of focused SWs was helpful to avoid dispersion of SWs [27]. Herein, the use of urodynamic

evaluation objectively confirmed the theory. Therefore, this study serves as a motive for further clinical trials examining the need for more SW sessions on long term. Also, the use of color

doppler ultrasound might be useful in future studies to define the impact of Li-SWT on bladder vascularity. In conclusion, Li-SWT is effective and safe treatment method for persistent

storage symptoms after TUS for BPO. It ameliorates OABS including frequency, urgency and urgency incontinence and improves QoL. It can be used as an alternative option to MRAs with similar

efficacy and less bothersome adverse effects. DATA AVAILABILITY The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on

reasonable request. REFERENCES * Egan KB. The Epidemiology of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Associated with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Prevalence and Incident Rates. Urol Clin North Am.

2016;43:289–97. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Eckhardt MD, van Venrooij GE, van Melick HH, Boon TA. Prevalence and bothersomeness of lower urinary tract symptoms in benign prostatic

hyperplasia and their impact on well-being. J Urol. 2001;166:563–8. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Choi H, Kim JH, Shim JS, Park JY, Kang SH, Moon du G, et al. Prediction of

persistent storage symptoms after transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic enlargement. Urol Int. 2014;93:425–30. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Zhao YR,

Liu WZ, Guralnick M, Niu WJ, Wang Y, Sun G, et al. Predictors of short-term overactive bladder symptom improvement after transurethral resection of prostate in men with benign prostatic

obstruction. Int J Urol. 2014;21:1035–40. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Mitterberger M, Pallwein L, Gradl J, Frauscher F, Neuwirt H, Leunhartsberger N, et al. Persistent detrusor

overactivity after transurethral resection of the prostate is associated with reduced perfusion of the urinary bladder. BJU Int. 2007;99:831–5. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Brading A,

Pessina F, Esposito L, Symes S. Effects of metabolic stress and ischaemia on the bladder, and the relationship with bladder overactivity. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2004;38:84–92. * Oelke

M, Baard J, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ, Jonas U, Höfner K. Age and bladder outlet obstruction are independently associated with detrusor overactivity in patients with benign prostatic

hyperplasia. Eur Urol. 2008;54:419–26. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fibbi B, Penna G, Morelli A, Adorini L, Maggi M. Chronic inflammation in the pathogenesis of benign prostatic

hyperplasia. Int J Androl. 2010;33:475–88. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Chughtai B, Simma-Chiang V, Kaplan SA. Evaluation and management of post-transurethral resection of the

prostate lower urinary tract symptoms. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:434. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Marcelissen T, Cornu JN, Antunes-Lopes T, Geavlete B, Delongchamps NB, Rashid T, et al.

Management of Idiopathic Overactive Bladder Syndrome: What Is the Optimal Strategy After Failure of Conservative Treatment? Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:760–7. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Chen YT, Yang CC, Sun CK, Chiang HJ, Chen YL, Sung PH, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy ameliorates cyclophosphamide-induced rat acute interstitial cystitis though inhibiting

inflammation and oxidative stress-in vitro and in vivo experiment studies. Am J Transl Res. 2014;6:631–48. PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Jin Y, Xu L, Zhao Y, Wang M, Jin X, Zhang

H. Endogenous Stem Cells Were Recruited by Defocused Low-Energy Shock Wave in Treating Diabetic Bladder Dysfunction. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2017;13:287–98. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar

  * Fojecki GL, Tiessen S, Osther PJ. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in urology: a systematic review of outcome in Peyronie’s disease, erectile dysfunction and chronic pelvic pain.

World J Urol. 2017;35:1–9. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Sakr AM, Fawzi AM, Kamel M, Ali MM. Outcomes and clinical predictors of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment

of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25:93–99. Article  CAS 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Zhang D, Wang YL, Gong DX, Zhang ZX, Yu XT, Ma YW. Radial Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy as a Novel Agent for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Refractory to Current

Medical Therapy. Am J Mens Health. 2019;13:1557988319831899. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Lu JH, Chueh KS, Chuang SM, Wu YH, Lin KL, Long CY, et al. Low Intensity

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy as a Potential Treatment for Overactive Bladder Syndrome. Biology. 2021;10:540. Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Gotoh M, Homma Y,

Yokoyama O, Nishizawa O. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important change in overactive bladder symptom score. Urology. 2011;78:768–73. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Liu M, Wang

J, Yang Y, An R, Wen J, Guan Z, et al. Overactive bladder symptom score to evaluate efficacy of solifenacin for the treatment of overactive bladder symptoms. Chin Med J. 2014;127:261–5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Sokolakis I, Pyrgidis N, Neisius A, Gierth M, Knoll T, Rassweiler J, et al. The Effect of Low-intensity Shockwave Therapy on Non-neurogenic Lower Urinary

Tract Symptoms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Preclinical and Clinical Studies. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:840–50. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Kim SJ, Bae WJ, Kim SW. Influence

of solifenacin on the improvement of storage symptoms in the early period after photoselective vaporization of the prostate. Investig Clin Urol. 2019;60:480–7. Article  PubMed  PubMed

Central  Google Scholar  * Sipal T, Akdere H. The relation between the storage symptoms before and after transurethral resection of the prostate, analysis of the risk factors and the

prevention of the symptoms with solifenacin. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46:575–84. Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Chapple CR, Cardozo L, Steers WD, Govier FE. Solifenacin

significantly improves all symptoms of overactive bladder syndrome. Int J Clin Pr. 2006;60:959–66. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Iselin CE, Schmidlin F, Borst F, Rohner S, Graber P.

Oxybutynin in the treatment of early detrusor instability after transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol. 1997;79:915–9. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gordon DJ, Emeruwa

CJ, Weiss JP. Management Strategies for Nocturia. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:75. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Hsiao SM, Chang TC, Wu WY, Chen CH, Yu HJ, Lin HH. Comparisons of urodynamic

effects, therapeutic efficacy and safety of solifenacin versus tolterodine for female overactive bladder syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37:1084–91. Article  CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Ghahhari J, De Nunzio C, Lombardo R, Ferrari R, Gatti L, Ghidini N, et al. Shockwave Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction: Which Gives the Best Results? A Retrospective National,

Multi-Institutional Comparative Study of Different Shockwave Technologies. Surg Technol Int. 2022;40:213–8. PubMed  Google Scholar  * Katz JE, Clavijo RI, Rizk P, Ramasamy R. The Basic

Physics of Waves, Soundwaves, and Shockwaves for Erectile Dysfunction. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8:100–5. Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are

grateful for the patients for participating in this study, as well as the staff of our department for supporting this study. FUNDING Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology

& Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura

University, Mansoura, Egypt Mohammed Hegazy, Khaled Z. Sheir, Mohamed A. Gaballah & Ahmed M. Elshal Authors * Mohammed Hegazy View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Khaled Z. Sheir View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mohamed A. Gaballah View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ahmed M. Elshal View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS First author: Mohammed

Hegazy (Hegazy M). MH contributed in conception and design of the study, acquisition and analysis of data and writing the manuscript. Second author: Khaled Z. Sheir (Sheir KZ). KZS helped in

supervision and revision of the manuscript, in addition to administrative and technical support. Third author: Mohamed A. Gaballah (Gaballah MA). MAG participated in supervision and

revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Last author: Ahmed M. Elshal (Elshal AM). AME contributed in the design of the study, statistical analysis and interpretation

of data, constant guidance and supervision and revision of the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Ahmed M. Elshal. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare

no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS

AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in

any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The

images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not

included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly

from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Hegazy, M., Sheir,

K.Z., Gaballah, M.A. _et al._ A randomized controlled trial evaluating low-intensity shockwave therapy for treatment of persistent storage symptoms following transurethral surgery for

benign prostatic obstruction. _Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis_ 27, 305–311 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00820-4 Download citation * Received: 29 November 2023 * Revised: 01

March 2024 * Accepted: 11 March 2024 * Published: 29 March 2024 * Issue Date: June 2024 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00820-4 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following

link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature

SharedIt content-sharing initiative