Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis

Treatment Selection and Outcomes: Ureteral Calculi

The most important recent advances in the management of ureteral calculi have been the development of medical expulsive therapy to facilitate passage of ureteral stones, such that many calculi that would previously have required procedural treatment now exit the ureter with only pharmacologic treatment; and the improvements in ureteroscopic technology that have enabled retrograde ureteroscopy to become a first-line option for most ureteral stones. Shock wave lithotripsy still plays an important role for many ureteral calculi, particularly smaller ones, and the addition of percutaneous/antegrade ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy rounds out the treatment options for large or impacted stones. Selection of treatment based upon factors such as size, location, and others will optimize outcome for patients who have ureteral calculi.

Optimizing Shock Wave Lithotripsy in the 21st Century

OBJECTIVE

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has radically changed treatment of stone disease and appears to be the first option for the majority of patients. This review of current literature focused on suggestions for optimising technique, patient selection, results, and lithotriptor comparison for SWL.

METHODS

Literature search for SWL was performed for recently published papers in English language. Topics of interest were treatment protocols; patient evaluation; pre-SWL prediction of outcome; lithotriptor technology; efficacy; and methods to assess the effects, decrease complications, and compare lithotriptors. Earlier classic papers on SWL and guidelines for stone disease were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Recent literature contained important recommendations about SWL concerning (1) methods to predict stone fragmentation; (2) identification of factors contributing to treatment failure for lower pole and ureteric calculi; (3) guidelines from urological associations; (4) manoeuvres and changes in SWL delivery (slower rate, twin-pulse technique) to increase efficacy and decrease complications; (5) clarification of the role of medical treatment (antibiotics, alpha-blockers); (6) role of SWL in calyceal stones, CIRF, and abnormal kidneys; (7) obesity and SWL; and (8) methods to evaluate and compare lithotriptors.

CONCLUSIONS

SWL delivered in an outpatient setting as an anaesthesia-free treatment is still considered the first option for the majority of stones with a minimal number of complications. Better understanding of the physics of shockwave delivery is required, together with treatment optimisation by limiting renal damage and better selection of patients because this approach will offer maximum benefit to patients and physicians, as well as more cost-effective treatment.

The use of tamsulozin as adjunctive treatment after ESWL in patients with distal ureteral stone: do we really need it?

Our study aimed to define the position of tamsulosin as adjunctive therapy in patients with stones of the distal ureter who had undergone extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). In total, 61 consecutive patients (38 men and 23 women) with single distal radiopaque ureteral stone of > or =6 mm of diameter were enrolled. After ESWL patients were randomized in two groups. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (supp. diclofenac 50 mg) was given to both groups upon demand. In group B, all patients (30) received additionally tamsulozin 0.4 mg every day. Follow-up visits were performed 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after ESWL. Evaluation included a KUB plain film and an ultrasound examination. Efficacy was evaluated in terms of success rate, stone-free rate, expulsion time of the fragments and use of diclofenac. Two patients from the tamsulosin group experienced dizziness and one was withdrawn. The success rate was 58.06 and 66.66% for the control and the tamsulosin group, respectively, while the corresponding values for stone-free rate were 51.6 and 63.33%, respectively. The mean expulsion time of the fragments was 13.22 days for group A and 12.95 days for group B. These results did not achieve statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). The mean diclofenac dose was 118.9 mg in group A and 56.9 mg in group B. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.02). Despite the relatively small number of patients, our data indicate that the use of tamsulosin after ESWL in this specific subgroup of patients does not result in improved success and stone-free rate and expulsion time. In contrast, a significantly reduced need for analgesics was found.

Examination of alpha 1 adrenoceptor subtypes in the human ureter

AIM

Urinary stone disease is a common condition affecting up to 12% of the population. Speedy elimination of ureterolithiasis in the lower part of ureters is reported with the alpha 1-blocker. This study was carried out to characterize the alpha 1 adrenoceptors (AR) subtype gene and protein expression in the proximal, medial, and distal regions of the human ureter with the aim of facilitating stone expulsion.

METHODS

The study was carried out on 20 volunteers. Proximal, medial and distal ureter specimens were obtained as discarded tissues after nephroureterectomy for renal pelvic or ureteral carcinoma. Proximal ureter specimens were obtained as discarded tissues after nephrectomy for renal carcinoma. Using ureter samples, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and immunohistochemical staining were performed.

RESULTS

The alpha 1d subtype mRNA was highly expressed in each ureteral region, accounting for about 54% of the total AR Messenger Ribonucleic Acid. In the proximal and medial ureter, the distribution of ARs was alpha 1d > or = alpha 1a > alpha 1b as well as that of the total ureter. The distal ureter expressed the highest amount of alpha 1d ARs. The alpha 1d subtype expression tended to be high compared with the alpha 1a subtype expression. In the distal ureter, the distribution of ARs was alpha 1d > alpha 1a > alpha 1b. Immunohistochemical staining revealed that expressions of alpha 1a-AR and alpha 1d-AR were higher than that of alpha 1b-AR.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, we should try the alpha 1d AR antagonist for the conservative expulsive therapy of distal ureteral stones in the highest region of alpha 1d subtype distribution.