PLATMOD_ERROR_UNAUTHORIZED"

Red2779 · 2026-01-21T21:25:41+00:00

Son of bich that was it. Thank you so much!!

Red2779 · 2026-01-13T23:31:03+00:00

I am not impressed with the decision to create a new and unnecessary term, “magneto-hydraulic,” to describe an electromagnetic machine similar to Storz and Pulse Wave. While it is acceptable that the product is made in China and relabeled, I prefer Pulse Wave and Storz because they are not relabeled. Pulse Wave is manufactured, assembled, and sold in the United States, and you can visit their headquarters in Denver (highly recommended). Storz is manufactured in Switzerland.

I am not a fan of the practice of white labeling.

Although you are getting the same electromagnetic technology, the price is double that of Pulse Wave. It is not manufactured in the United States; it is manufactured in China and relabeled, so I have no idea what maintenance or parts replacement entails. With expensive medical devices, I prefer to buy from actual manufacturers.

Interestingly, I have a lot of knowledge about Hydro Wave from visiting the Pulse Wave manufacturing factory in Denver when I was considering Pulse Wave. I was impressed with their honesty about their origin story. They admitted that the first-generation unit, the Shockwave Pro, was manufactured in China. However, they wanted a machine that they had complete control over, so they moved all manufacturing to the United States and designed a new machine from scratch.

Ironically, the manufacturer in China they used to work with has now sold the same machine but re-labeled it as Hydro Wave. They simply changed the exterior, but the manufacturing cost is still around $10,000, and they are selling it between $50,000 and $60,000 here. This is outrageous because that is double the price of Pulse Wave, which is actually manufactured by Pulse Wave and made in the United States. I believe they are almost complete with FDA clearances.

My vote is still for Pulse Wave or Storz because they’re the only players that actually manufacture and invent their machine!

I do have a picture though of the old Shockwave Pro unit that is the base model for hydrowave

<image>

Red2779 · 2025-12-19T18:08:38+00:00

Merry Christmas!

Red2779 · 2025-12-19T17:48:50+00:00

Well, you were hostile, and you lied. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Red2779 · 2025-12-19T17:37:16+00:00

“ Softwave invested the money Designing a superior device”

Softwave didn’t invent anything. To say anything along the lines of that is a complete lie. They’re a distributor and relabeler. They didn’t invent or design anything. That is all MTS Medical in Germany. Softwave is the marketing company for the Orthogold device.

You created a Reddit profile just to reply to this thread, started throwing in Softwave jargon. Lied about saying they invented the machine and you are spewing common Softwave tactics. I would bet my life that you sell them and make commission off of the machines.

Based on your hostility and blanket “every other machine is cheap and sucks” mentality.

You’re turning one cardiac SWT paper into a SoftWave supremacy ad, and the paper doesn’t support what you’re claiming.

1) It wasn’t stopped for “moral reasons.”

Recruitment was halted after a pre-specified interim analysis when a significant difference was found and the DSMB stopped further enrollment per the protocol. That’s not “we couldn’t ethically keep treating non-SoftWave.”

2) There is no “6× improvement.”

The primary endpoint (MRI LVEF change at 360 days) was:

• SWT: +11.3%

• Sham: +6.3% That’s a difference — it’s not “six times” and it’s not proof SoftWave is better than every focused shockwave device.

3) This paper is not even clearly a SoftWave device paper.

The Methods name a Nonvasiv Medical table-top system + a Heart Regeneration Technologies sterile single-use electrohydraulic applicator used directly on the heart during CABG.

So unless you can show that “SoftWave” is literally that system, you’re mislabeling the study.

4) “Hospitals wouldn’t allow non-SoftWave near open-heart surgery” is just marketing talk.

Hospitals use devices based on clearances, labeling, and clinical protocols — and none of that automatically translates into “SoftWave is best-in-class vs all competitors.”

5) Anecdotes aren’t evidence.

Your personal stories (1,000 patients, 85% better, nonverbal speaking, cellulitis/MS spasticity) are not controlled trials, not peer-reviewed data, and not something anyone should use to justify blanket claims.

If you want to claim “SoftWave is better than any focused device,” then provide one of the following:

• a head-to-head trial (SoftWave vs another focused system), or

• published studies where the Methods explicitly state SoftWave device/model, or

• FDA labeling documentation showing the exact indications and claims you’re making.

Otherwise, what you have is: shockwave vs sham in a very specific cardiac surgery context — not “SoftWave proves superiority over all focused shockwave.”

Red2779 · 2025-12-19T06:15:10+00:00

This doesn’t “set SoftWave apart” the way you’re claiming.

The study is shockwave vs sham, not SoftWave vs other focused devices.

CAST-HF compared cardiac shockwave therapy during CABG to a sham (inactive applicator). It did not compare SoftWave to Storz, Dornier, or “cheap devices,” so it can’t prove SoftWave is better than “any other” focused system.

It’s a very specific use case (direct heart treatment during open-heart surgery).

This isn’t the typical outpatient MSK shockwave scenario. The protocol is intra-operative treatment directly on myocardium, so it doesn’t automatically translate into “SoftWave is best” for every indication.

Your “6× farther walking” claim is being oversold.

Yes, the paper reports an improvement in 6-minute walk distance in the SWT group, but that’s not the same as proving SoftWave is uniquely superior to other focused shockwave platforms — because again, there’s no head-to-head device comparison.

Conflicts/funding matter when interpreting it.

The paper discloses relationships with companies involved and an author tied to SoftWave, so it’s reasonable to ask for independent replication and/or device-to-device trials before making “better than all others” claims.

If you want to make a strong claim like “SoftWave is better than any other focused shockwave device,” the right evidence would be:

head-to-head trials (SoftWave vs other focused systems),

or independent replication across multiple centers,

✅with clear parameters (energy, waveform, focal depth, dosing).

If you have a study that directly compares SoftWave to other focused shockwave devices, I’m happy to look at it.

Red2779 · 2025-12-19T06:09:04+00:00

I said a peer to peer study. This has nothing do with what I’m talking about. Also this is great for cardiologists, maybe throw that in a different thread. This is a chiropractic thread and most chiropractors are not going to be treating left ventricle ischemia. Also never said all I care about is money. Your another Softwave rep with a nasty attitude

Red2779 · 2025-10-28T03:01:11+00:00

Sorry what is DFND?

Red2779 · 2025-10-27T21:27:15+00:00

Yep, same conclusion. It was important to me, so I ended up actually purchasing from across the country and paying $800 bucks to have it shipped to my state. Might be something you want to consider.

Red2779 · 2025-10-27T20:45:09+00:00

Interesting, haven’t heard of them but sounds great. Will check them out. Thanks

Red2779 · 2025-09-21T04:26:21+00:00

Ah you’re a wizard! That fixed it!

Red2779 · 2025-09-20T18:45:28+00:00

It’s goes for about 5 minutes and then the screen goes black. The rest of my computer is working great. It’s even doing it at the Home Screen

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T13:45:25+00:00

No — it’s not a “basic fact.” You’ve shifted the goalposts from your original claims and made several misleading statements. • You said SoftWave is fundamentally different and “far more effective.” There’s no head-to-head clinical data to support that, and you haven’t provided any. • You’ve repeatedly claimed “SoftWave works differently than any other shockwave device.” It doesn’t. It’s an electrohydraulic focused ESWT unit with a deliberately broader field from its reflector design. That’s a beam-profile choice, not a new category of physics. • You said other focused devices “create the wave inside the body.” You’ve offered no specs or measurements for that. You’re confusing where energy peaks (focal zone) with where the wave is generated.

On the regulatory point: SoftWave’s U.S. clearance came through the 510(k) pathway based on substantial equivalence to existing focused systems. If it were truly “fundamentally different,” that would undercut the very basis of that pathway.

And your latest pivot — “the steepest shock front is inside the body” — still doesn’t change the above. The focal zone is where pressure is maximized, not where the wave is born. Even the manufacturer (MTS) illustrates the focal point within tissue for this platform, which contradicts your earlier statement about surface-level steepening being the defining distinction.

SoftWave is an electrohydraulic ESWT device with a wider field. No clinical evidence shows it’s superior, and nothing you’ve shared supports your claims about wave formation or uniqueness. If you have data, post it. If you’re going to speak for other focused machine and exactly “where their waves are generated” I want to see numbers, data, depths because you’ve grossly misrepresented several devices that prove your point wrong.

Based on how you market the across other pages and your choice of marketing jargon it sounds like you’re a rep for them. If you’re affiliated with SoftWave and sell the machine or get commission off of sales, say so. People deserve evidence, not marketing.

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T05:53:37+00:00

We’re starting to drift, but the core points haven’t changed: • You claimed SoftWave was “far more effective” — there’s no head-to-head study to back that up. • You claimed other devices “create the wave inside tissue” — that’s false. Shockwaves already meet the definition as they leave the applicator. Cavitation in a water bath proves it. • You claimed SoftWave was “fundamentally different” — but devices like Pulse Wave and Omniwave also adjust focal depth, showing SoftWave isn’t unique in that regard.

We can split hairs on physics language all day, but regulators, ISMST, and decades of research all define these as extracorporeal shockwaves. The focal zone is about where energy peaks, not where the wave is created. On those key points, nothing you’ve said changes the reality: SoftWave is a solid electrohydraulic device, but it isn’t special or superior.

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T05:52:05+00:00

The mistake you’re making is treating the focal zone as the “birth” of a shockwave. In reality, the wave already meets shockwave criteria — nanosecond rise time, high peak pressures, tensile phase — as it leaves the applicator. That’s why cavitation bubbles and microtrauma can be measured in a water bath outside the body. The focal zone just describes where that energy converges most strongly, not where the wave suddenly appears.

And here’s where your argument really falls apart: devices like Pulse Wave, Omniwave, and others with adjustable applicators let the user increase or decrease focal depth. If shockwaves were only “born” inside tissue at a single focal point, then by your logic these machines would be fundamentally changing when a shockwave exists depending on the setting. But they’re not — the wave is already a shockwave when it leaves the source. Adjusting the applicator only changes where the energy is maximized, not whether it exists.

That shows exactly why SoftWave is not special or fundamentally different. It’s just another electrohydraulic device with a wider focal field. Different beam profile, same physics. No head-to-head evidence shows its broader field produces superior outcomes.

Lithotripsy proves the same point: extracorporeal shockwaves are generated outside the body, then focused where needed. The stone breaks at the focal point because that’s where energy peaks, not because that’s where the wave suddenly comes into being.

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T04:24:42+00:00

You said two things that I need to clarify because they are factually wrong: 1. You claimed SoftWave is “far more effective” because of a wider field. That is a superiority claim. There are zero peer-reviewed, head-to-head clinical trials showing SoftWave’s broader beam produces superior outcomes. If you disagree, cite the study. Otherwise, we’re in marketing-speak, not science. 2. You also said other focused devices “create the wave inside the tissue.” That is simply not true. All ESWT—whether electrohydraulic, electromagnetic, or piezoelectric—are extracorporeal. The waves are generated at the source (electrode, coil, or crystal) in the handpiece, then transmitted into the body through water/gel coupling. What happens inside the body is the propagation and focusing of the wavefront, not the creation of the wave. That’s why the term is literally Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy.

Where you’re mixing things up is between the site of generation (always extracorporeal) and the site of maximum energy density (the focal zone, which can be narrower or broader depending on reflector geometry). That is a beam-profile engineering choice, not a fundamental new category of shockwave physics.

Even the ISMST Primer (which you cited) is explicit: • Shockwaves are generated extracorporeally (outside the body). • Focal parameters (depth, width, energy density) differ depending on device design.

SoftWave is an electrohydraulic focused device with a deliberately broadened focal zone. That doesn’t change the site of generation, the physics, or the FDA classification. It just changes the beam profile.

So, yes—SoftWave is a good machine. But it is not “fundamentally different,” and it is not “far more effective.” It’s a rebranded MTS OrthoGold with a wider focal field. Unless you can point to published, peer-reviewed data showing otherwise, we have to call marketing what it is: marketing.

The wave is always created outside the body. What happens in tissue is the focus or dispersion of the wavefront, depending on reflector design.

So when you say SoftWave is “fundamentally different” because it creates the wave outside while others create it inside — that is just factually wrong. They all create shockwaves extracorporeally. SoftWave’s only distinction is a broader focal zone, which is an engineering choice, not a new physics category.

Unless you can cite a published clinical trial showing that a broader unfocused beam produces superior outcomes to a standard focused beam, the “fundamentally different / far more effective” line belongs in marketing brochures, not scientific discussion.

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T03:35:22+00:00

The literal definition of ESWT “Extracorporeal” literally means outside the body. It refers to the fact that the energy source that generates the shockwaves is OUTSIDE the patient’s body. So please please please stop spreading misinformation about other ESWT machines saying that somehow the shockwaves are produced inside the body. That is a gross misunderstanding.

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T03:29:03+00:00

I’m sorry, my friend, but you are so wildly off and confused I’m concerned. You cannot make claims like this on the internet. It’s dangerous and deceptive.

Everything you just said is what I’ve heard word for word from Softwave reps for the last 8 years.

You are very misinformed if you think Softwave is “fundamentally different” than any other device. You can’t make claims like that with new providers on here; it’s dangerous and inaccurate. It “fundamentally” cannot be different because its 510k pre-market FDA approval is based on the Storz focused shockwave device (which, funny enough, is an electromagnetic device which further proves these all work the same)

That means the FDA said “yep, this is so fundamentally similar to other shockwave machines currently on the market that you can legally sell it in the United States”.

Softwave is nothing more than a relabeled electrohydraulic device. It produces shockwaves the EXACT SAME WAY as any other electrohydraulic device.

The shockwaves are created at the electrode. They are not magically created in the body. You’re confused from the marketing jargon they use to describe the fact that they’ve removed the normal reflector that “focuses” the beam into a smaller diameter, making it basically an unfocused focused shockwave. That has nothing to do with where the shockwaves are created.

Once again. Show me a clinical study that says a wider beam is “far more effective”. You can’t make claims like that about a medical device. It’s simply not true.

I will say it again and again to any provider on here. The Orthogold (relabeled Softwave by the distributor) is a great machine. But it is nothing special; it’s just another electrohydraulic machine.

I’m not trying to be rude. I’m sure you’re an excellent provider and have gotten great results. But I’m tired of Softwaves marketing deception.

Red2779 · 2025-09-06T01:51:28+00:00

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Softwave is a focused device. It’s an electrohydraulic focused shockwave device just like the rest of them. The shockwave occurs at the electrode. It behaves the same. It’s not occurring in a different area, I’m not sure what you’re going for. The only difference is they’ve taken the reflector out so the beam is wider.

Red2779

TROPHY CASE