Silodosin vs tamsulosin in the management of distal ureteric stones: A prospective randomised study

A Comparison Between Silodosin and Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Distal Ureteric Calculus

INTRODUCTION

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is an established treatment option for distal ureteric stones. Tamsulosin, a selective alpha-1 blocker, has been used for MET with good results, while silodosin, a more selective alpha-1a blocker, is more effective than tamsulosin for MET. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of silodosin with tamsulosin.

METHODS

This prospective randomized study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Government Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India. Eighty patients who presented with ureteric colic and were radiologically diagnosed with distal ureteric calculus of size <10mm were included. Participants in the silodosin group received tablet silodosin 8mg OD until the passage of the stone, not more than two weeks, and analgesics as per demand. And participants in the tamsulosin group received tablet tamsulosin 0.4mg OD until the passage of the stone, not more than two weeks, and analgesics as per demand.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were included in the study. Forty patients in the silodosin group and forty patients in the tamsulosin group were included. In the silodosin group, out of 40 patients, 38 expelled the calculus. In the tamsulosin group, out of 40 patients, 28 expelled the calculus. The silodosin group had a significantly higher rate of expulsion, with a p-value of 0.003. Stone expulsion time was shorter in the silodosin group when compared with the tamsulosin group (10.15 vs. 13.4 days). Analgesic usage during medical expulsive therapy was lower in the silodosin group (5.68 vs. 8.4). We observed significant differences in comparing the outcome, stone expulsion time, and analgesic requirement between the silodosin and tamsulosin groups. We observed no significant difference between the groups for age-wise and gender-wise comparisons. Furthermore, non-expulsion of calculus in four patients and pain in eight patients were the reasons for intervention in the tamsulosin group. The reason for intervention in the silodosin group was the non-expulsion of calculus in two patients.

CONCLUSION

Using silodosin for MET of distal ureteric calculus, we found to have a better stone expulsion rate, early expulsion time, and reduced analgesic requirement.

Comparative study between Tamsulosin, Silodosin and Tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of Tamsulosin, Silodosin and Tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for treatment of distal ureteral calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a period of 6 months (January 2022 to June 2022) this prospective randomized study was conducted on 170 patients with distal ureteric stone ≤ 10 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group A received Tamsulosin 0.4mg, in group B received Silodosin, and in group C receive Tadalafil 5 mg. Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The rate and time of stone expulsion, the analgesic use, attacks of colic and hospital visits for pain, and adverse effects of drugs were recorded.

RESULTS

Among 170 patients who were enrolled in study, 20 were lost to follow-up (7, 8, 5 in group A, B, And C respective-ly). There was a significant higher stone passage rate in group C than group A and B (90% vs. 70% and 76% respectively; p-value = 0.043) and shorter expulsion time in group C (8.7 ± 3.3 days) vs. group A (12.5 ± 5.2 days) and group B (11.3 ± 4.2 days) with (p-value = 0.001)(highly statistically significant with p-value < 0.001) and increased amount of analgesics required in group A (225 ± 115.7 mg) and group B (163 ± 77.5 mg) when compared with group C (120 ± 55.3 mg).

CONCLUSION

Tadalafil is more effective than Tamsulosin and Silodosin in treatment of patients with distal ureteric stones ≤ 10 mm as regard stone expulsion rate, expulsion time with decreased number of colicky episodes and side effects.

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I2 = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I2 = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I2 = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm.

An update on efficacy and safety of alpha-blockers in the treatment of distal ureteric stones: narrative review

Background

Alpha-blockers prescribed as medical expulsion therapy (MET) have replaced minimally invasive procedures as the primary line of treatment for minor ureteric stones. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of MET with alpha-blockers in terms of stone expulsion rate and time and evaluate the safety of several alpha-blockers.

Methodology

Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant publications using keywords published between December 2013 and August 2021. Additional relevant research was found by looking through the references in the articles.

Results

To determine the efficacy and safety of alpha-blockers as a medical expulsive therapy for the management of distal ureteral stones, 15 studies were included, 12 randomized control trials, 2 retrospective observational studies, and 1 prospective study. The most commonly studied primary endpoint was stone expulsion rate and time. According to findings, silodosin appears to be more effective than other alpha-blockers. The data revealed no life-threatening adverse effects were associated with alpha-blockers.

Conclusion

Alpha-blockers are recommended as the first-line therapy for distal ureteral stones. Silodosin was the most efficacious medicine, according to the data. The side effects of alpha-blockers, on the other hand, were minor, consisting primarily of orthostatic hypotension. The alpha-blocker choice differs from urologist to urologist in the management of MET, depending on their experience and the patient's condition.

Evolving Role of Silodosin for the Treatment of Urological Disorders – A Narrative Review

Use of α-androgenic receptor blockers remains a mainstay therapeutic approach for the treatment of urological diseases. Silodosin is recommended over other α-blockers for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), due to its high α_1A uroselectivity. Current research data suggest that silodosin is efficacious in the management of various urological diseases. Thus, we herein review the current evidence of silodosin related to its efficacy and tolerability and appraise the available literature that might ultimately aid in management of various urological conditions at routine clinical practice. Literature reveals that silodosin is beneficial in improving nocturia events related to LUTS/BPH. Silodosin exerts effect on relaxing muscles involved in detrusor obstruction, therefore prolonging the need for patients undergoing invasive surgery. Silodosin treatment, either as a monotherapy or combination, significantly improves International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) including both storage and voiding symptoms in patients with BPH/LUTS. Patients on other treatment therapies such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors or other α-blockers are well managed with this drug. Steadily, silodosin has proved beneficial in the treatment of other urological disorders such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), overactive bladder/acute urinary retention (AUR), premature ejaculation (PE), and prostate cancer post brachytherapy-induced progression. In patients with distal ureteral stones, silodosin treatment is beneficial in decreasing stone expulsion time without affecting stone expulsion rate or analgesic need. Moreover, there were significant improvements in intravaginal ejaculation latency time, quality of life scores, and decrease in PE profile among patients with PE. Silodosin has also demonstrated promising results in increasing the likelihood of successful trial without catheter in patients with AUR and those taking antihypertensive drugs. Reports from Phase II studies have shown promising role of silodosin in the treatment of CP/CPPS as well as facilitating ureteral stone passage. From the robust data in this review, further silodosin treatment strategies in the management of different urological conditions need to be focused on.

Effect of alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists on sexual function. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.

Comparison of efficacy of various drugs used for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Medical expulsive therapy has been found to be effective for distal ureteric stones; however, which drug is most efficacious in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET) is not known. With this review we aimed to compare the efficacy of various drug treatments for distal ureter stones used as medical expulsive therapy in terms of SER and SET.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted to include all the randomised study comparing various drug interventions for lower ureter stones. Standard preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were pursued.

RESULTS

In this review, 50 randomised studies with 12,382 patients were included. For stone expulsion rate (SER), compared with placebo all the treatment groups were more effective except nifedipine and sildenafil. According to the SUCRA values obtained, naftopidil plus steroid was the highest rank and nifedipine lowest. For stone expulsion time (SET), compared with placebo only tadalafil plus silodosin, nifedipine plus steroid, alfuzosin, silodosin, tadalafil and tamsulosin were more effective. SUCRA values were highest for tadalafil plus silodosin and least for naftopidil plus steroid. From subgroup analysis with individual drugs for SER, SUCRA values were highest for naftopidil followed by silodosin and SET was highest for silodosin and least for naftopidil.

CONCLUSION

For lower ureter stone, tadalafil plus silodosin is the best combination and silodosin best individual drug considering the SET and SER. Nifedipine as monotherapy is no more effective than control group.

Comparison of the efficacy of silodosin and a terpene combination in the medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the efficacy of silodosin and a terpene combination in the treatment of distal ureteral stones.

METHODOLOGY

The data of the patients admitted to the urology policlinic with renal colic, diagnosed with distal ureteral stones, and followed up with medical expulsive therapy between December 2017 and June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 comprised 72 patients that received 8 mg/day silodosin and Group 2 consisted of 51 patients that were given three capsules of a terpene combination daily. The groups were compared in terms of the patients' demographic characteristics, medical history, localisation of the present stone, renal collecting system status, daily fluid intake, number of emergency service visits, number of additional analgesic applications needed, number of pain attacks, number of days off work, stone expulsion rate and time to stone expulsion.

RESULTS

Of the total 123 patients, 98 (79.7%) were stone-free. The stone-free rate was 75.0% in Group 1 and 86.3% in Group 2, with no statistical difference between the two groups. However, the number of visits to the emergency service because of pain, number of additional analgesic applications required, number of days off work, and time to stone expulsion were statistically significantly lower in Group 2 than in Group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of distal ureteral stones with silodosin is as effective as the terpene combination. However, the terpene combination is more effective than silodosin in managing pain and accelerating stone expulsion.

Can the Hounsfield unit predict the success of medical expulsive therapy using silodosin in 4- to 10-mm distal ureteral stones?

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the predictive ability of the Hounsfield unit (HU) on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for the success of medical expulsive therapy (MET) using silodosin in distal ureteric stones of 4-10 mm.

METHODOLOGY

The data of patients who underwent MET were retrospectively screened. The patients were divided into two groups as Groups 1 and 2 depending on the presence or absence of stone expulsion, respectively. In addition to HU calculated using the NCCT images, state of the collecting systems, daily fluid intake, number of emergency department visits, and number of pain attacks were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were included in the study. Sixty-four patients (72.7%) expelled the stone after MET while the treatment was not successful in 24 patients (27.3%). The stone area was significantly larger in Group 2 (28.4 ± 15.7 mm² vs 46.8 ± 16.1 mm² ; P < .001). NCCT-HU was calculated as 542.5 ± 256.8 for Group 1 and 873.1 ± 335.2 for Group 2, indicating a significant difference (P < .001). The mean number of pain attacks was 1.5 ± 1.2 in Group 1 and 2.2 ± 1.4 in Group 2 (P = .048). The number of visits to the emergency department significantly differed between Groups 1 and 2 (1.1 ± 1.0 and 1.8 ± 1.3, respectively; P = .010).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, HU and stone area values calculated on NCCT were found to be effective factors in predicting the treatment success for MET. Therefore, we consider that it would be useful to consider these parameters in the selection of an appropriate treatment for distal ureteric stones.

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Children with Lower-Third Ureteric Stones: Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of silodosin versus tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for stones of lower-third ureter in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective single-blind placebo-controlled randomized study included 167 pediatric patients who presented with distal ureteric stone (DUS) less than 1 cm. Patients were randomized into 3 groups; group I received silodosin 4 mg once daily, and group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg while those in group III had placebo. The side effects of the used drugs, both rate and time of stone expulsion, and number of pain episodes were compared among the study groups for a maximum of 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Follow-up data of our patients after treatment revealed that the stone expulsion rate was significantly higher and the time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in group I (89.3%, 12.4 ± 2.3 days) and group II (74.5%, 16.2 ± 4.2 days) compared to group III (51.8%, 21.2 ± 5.6). However, a statistically significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin groups in favor of the former one was reported regarding the 2 studied items. Meanwhile, pain episodes requiring analgesia were statistically fewer in group I and II in contrast to placebo group. Adverse events were comparable among all groups.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin provides significantly better stone expulsion rate and shorter expulsion time than tamsulosin for treatment of DUS. Both medications showed good safety profiles in children. However, further studies are required on a larger scale to confirm our results. Assessment of drug safety on younger age-group is still needed.

Efficacy and safety of silodosin, vardenafil versus silodosin in combination with vardenafil as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized double-blind study

Background

Urolithiasis is considered one of the most common diseases in urological practice. Its prevalence is about 1% to 15% with 30 years old as the peak age of incidence. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been used as a conservative treatment for patients with ureteral stones. Nitrergic fibers have been identified to have a relaxant effect on the distal ureteral smooth musculature. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of silodosin and vardenafil as a medical expulsive therapy in comparison with each drug alone.

Methods

One hundred and two male patients with uncomplicated distal ureteric stone 6–10 mm were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into 3 equal groups, and each one consists of 34 patients. Group I received silodosin 8 mg once daily, group II vardenafil 5 mg once daily and group III combination of silodosin 8 mg and vardenafil 5 mg once daily. The treatment was given for all the patients until stone expulsion or a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and the secondary endpoints were time to stone expulsion, number of hospital visits for pain, amount of analgesic required and side effects associated with MET.

Results

Our study showed that the stone expulsion rate was higher in combination = 90.0% than silodosin = 76.7% and vardenafil groups = 60.0% (P = 0.025), the time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in combination = 11.23 ± 3.14 than silodosin = 12.50 ± 1.66 and vardenafil groups 14.67 ± 1.24 days (P < 0.01), the number of hospital visits for pain was statistically significant between the three groups (silodosin 1.35 ± 0.9, vardenafil 1.65 ± 1.09 and combination groups 1.02 ± 0.80) (P = 0.038) and lesser amount of analgesic required in combination 313.6 ± 2.85.5 than silodosin 613.44 ± 483.62 and vardenafil groups 716.97 ± 685.3 (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference among the studied groups as regards the drugs side effects except for retrograde ejaculation (silodosin and combination = 86.7% vs vardenafil groups = 0.0%) (P < 0.05) and increased erection (combination = 26.7%, vardenafil = 23.3% and silodosin groups = 0%) (P = 0.010).

Conclusion

The prescription of vardenafil in combination with silodosin is safe and more effective than silodosin or vardenafil alone as a MET.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of Gilaburu (Viburnum opulus L.) extract in the medical expulsive treatment of distal ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

Medical expulsive therapy is an important non-invasive treatment modality that facilitates the passage of ureteral stones. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of Gilaburu (Viburnum opulus) extract in the treatment of distal ureteral stones <10 mm.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of 103 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: those given V. opulus 1000 mg peroral 3×2 and diclofenac 50 mg peroral on-demand (n=53) and those given only diclofenac sodium 50 mg peroral on-demand (n=50). Comparisons of stone expulsion rates and the elapsed time until the expulsion between the groups were determined as primary outcome measures. The comparison of the need for additional treatment [ureteroscopy (URS) or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)], the need for emergency admission, analgesic requirement, and the complication rates in additional treatment were determined as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 45.8±14.5 years. The rate of stone expulsion was significantly higher (82% vs. 66%, p=0.026), and elapsed time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter (9±1.8 vs. 14±2.3 day, p=0.018) in the V. opulus group. The need for additional treatment (URS and ESWL) and analgesic requirement was less in the V. opulus group (9.4% vs. 20%, p=0.038 and 24.5% vs. 44%, p=0.042, respectively).

CONCLUSION

V. opulus is an herbal treatment alternative that facilitates the passage of ureteral stones <10 mm. Prospective, randomized studies are needed to support these results.

Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi of 5 to 10 mm in size: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

To evaluate the Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors as a medical therapy for distal ureteral calculi by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before May, 2017. Stone passage rate as the primary outcome. We used random effects model for pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian random effects model for NMA. We evaluated the quality of evidence by the GRADE framework for each network estimate. Five RCTs (861 patients) comparing four different interventions. The results of NMA showed that compared with tamsulosin alone, tamsulosin combined with tadalafil group was associated with significantly higher stone passage rate (odds radio [OR] 2.55, 95% credible intervals [Crl] 1.11 to 5.89). When considering stone expulsion rate, compared with tamsulosin, silodosin was ranked best (OR 3.58, 95% Crl 1.13 to 11.91), followed by tamsulosin combined with tadalafil (OR 2.55, 95% Crl 1.11 to 5.89) and tadalafil alone (OR 1.86, 95% Crl 0.95 to 4.25). No significant difference was found considering safety profiles between any interventions. This meta-analysis indicates that tamsulosin combined with tadalafil is an effective treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects. Clinicians should take all known safety and compliance of patients into account when choosing an optimal strategy. Since sample size of included studies, further RCTs are strongly encouraged to address the clinical question.

Silodosin versus tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Silodosin, a recently introduced selective α-blocker, has a much higher selectivity for the α-1A receptor. The efficacy and safety of silodosin compared to tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) are controversial. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of silodosin compared to tamsulosin for treating ureteral stones <10 mm in diameter. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases from their inception to May 2018. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies, which investigated stone expulsion rates using silodosin compared to tamsulosin. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Sixteen studies with 1824 patients were eligible for inclusion. Silodosin achieved significantly higher expulsion rates than tamsulosin (pooled risk difference (RD): 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.18, GRADE: high). A subgroup analyses showed that silodosin has a significantly higher expulsion rate on stone sizes of 5-10 mm than tamsulosin (pooled RD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.22, I2 = 0%). The superior effect was not observed on stone sizes <5 mm. A multivariate regression showed that the RD was negatively associated with the control expulsion rate after adjusting for age and gender (coefficient -0.658, p = 0.01). A sensitivity analysis showed that our findings were robust. Patients receiving silodosin also probably had a significantly shorter expulsion time (pooled mean difference (MD): -2.55 days, 95% CI: -4.06 to -1.04, I2 = 85%, GRADE: moderate) and may have fewer pain episodes (pooled MD: -0.3, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.09, GRADE: low) but a higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation by 5% compared to those receiving tamsulosin. In conclusion, compared to tamsulosin, silodosin provided significantly better stone passage for patients with ureteral stones (particularly for sizes of 5~10 mm), shorter expulsion times, and fewer pain episodes but caused a higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation.

Comparing tamsulosin, silodosin versus silodosin plus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteric stones: A randomised trial

Objective

To compare the efficacy of tamsulosin, silodosin, and silodosin plus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculi.

Methods

In all, 120 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomised into one of three treatment arms: tamsulosin (Group A), silodosin (Group B), and silodosin plus tadalafil (Group C). The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, and side-effects associated with MET. The follow-up period was for 4 weeks, after which ureteroscopic lithotripsy was done to remove any stones that were not expelled.

Results

There was a statistically significantly higher stone expulsion rate in Group C (90%) as compared to groups A (57.5%) and B (77.5%) with a shorter mean time to stone expulsion. Also, there were statistically fewer pain episodes in Group C as compared to groups A and B. There were no serious side-effects.

Conclusion

The present study concludes that the combination of silodosin and tadalafil increases the ureteric stone expulsion rate and decreases the expulsion time significantly. This combination provided significantly better control of pain without any serious side-effects.

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones: Tamsulosin Versus Silodosin in the Turkish Population

Introduction

Our aim was to contribute a study that includes a higher patient population to the limited number of studies comparing tamsulosin and silodosin in the treatment of distal ureteral stones.

Material and methods

Patients who presented with renal colic to the urology emergency clinic and were diagnosed with ureteral stones and followed-up with conservative treatment between January 2010 and January 2016 were retrospectively screened. According to the inclusion-exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into three groups. Group 1: 150 patients followed with watchful waiting (WW), Group 2: 156 patients who received 0.4 mg of tamsulosin daily, and Group 3: 159 patients who received 8 mg of silodosin daily. The side effects of the used drugs, duration of stone reduction, and expulsion rates were evaluated and compared separately.

Results

A total of 465 patients were included in the study. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of age, gender, and stone size among the groups. The patient characteristics and results are shown in Table 1. The differences in stone expulsion rate between the groups in the first week were calculated using the Chi-square test and found to be non-significant (p = 0.155); whereas, the stone expulsion rates between Group 1 versus Group 2 and Group 1 versus Group 3 were found to be significantly different after the second and third week.

Conclusion

According to our results, no statistically significant superiority between tamsulosin and silodosin was shown in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in the Turkish population.