Efficacy of tamsulosin in the management of lower ureteral stones: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of 100 patients

Alpha-blockers: the magic pill for endourology-The great delusion

PURPOSE

The present paper takes a different and more critical look at the role of alpha-blockers, sometimes nicknamed as "magical pills", in particular for stone disease and medical expulsive therapy (MET).

METHODS

A non-systematic narrative review was performed, synthesizing pertinent information from selected articles, and critically evaluating their conclusions. Sometimes different views on alpha-blockers were laid bare, including curiosities or other entertaining nuances suitable to the present topic, but always maintaining sharp objectivity and the foremost scientific rigor.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Alpha-blockers seem to be a panacea, being used to treat a wide variety of non-urological diseases and conditions. Urological applications include erectile dysfunction to benign prostatic hyperplasia, from incontinence to urinary retention, or even to facilitate urinary stone passage along the urinary tract. Due to its versatility, alpha-blockers appear to be the Swiss army knife of urological medications. However, the efficacy of alpha-blockers for MET, pain management, or facilitating upper tract access is very disappointing, bringing no, or in some instances, only marginal benefits. Their treatment results are far from being significant or impressive let alone magical. Regular sexual intercourse is an effective alternative to alpha-blockers, providing faster ureteral stone expulsion rates and reducing the need for pain medication. Most of the research supporting alpha-blockers has been based on single-center, underpowered, low-quality studies. These low-quality studies biased several subsequent meta-analyses, contaminating them with their low-quality data, enhancing and prolonging this delusion. These results emphasize the need for large, multi-centric, unbiased, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials to prevent future year-long delusions that may afflict any medical field.

Efficacy of sexual intercosurse in the spontaneous passage of distal or intramural ureteral stones: a randomsized controlled trial

Background

The role of sexual intercourse as an alternative treatment approach for ureteral stones (UTSs) is a recent area of investigation with only small sample-sized studies. This study aims to evaluate the role of sexual intercourse in the spontaneous passage of distal or intramural UTSs via a larger sample size.

Materials and methods

The study population included cases that had either a distal ureteric or an intramural radiopaque stone. The patients were divided into two groups; group A was instructed to engage in sexual intercourse two to three times per week while also receiving symptomatic treatment for 4 weeks. Group B received symptomatic treatment alone and was instructed to abstain from sexual intercourse or masturbation for the same period.

Results

A total of 160 male patients were enrolled in this study. The ages of the patients ranged from 21 to 58 years. The rate of stone expulsion after 2 weeks was 68.18% in group A and 53% in group B (P=0.053). The expulsion rate after 4 weeks was 80% in group A and 68.4% in group B (P=0.072). The mean expulsion time was 13.9±5.4 days for the experimental group and 15.2±6.7 days for the control group (P=0.179). The experimental group required fewer analgesic injections in comparison to the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

While the role of sexual intercourse in facilitating the passage of distal or intramural UTSs cannot be fully established, it may aid to some extent. However, it should not be relied upon as a standalone treatment modality.

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.

Medical Treatment and Prevention of Urinary Stone Disease

The pathophysiology underlying urinary stone formation remains an area of active investigation. There are many pharmacotherapies aimed at optimizing metabolic factors and reducing urinary supersaturation of stone components that play an important role in urinary stone prevention. In addition, medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones and medical dissolution therapy for uric acid-based urinary stones are helpful treatment tools and are used alongside surgical treatments in the management of urinary stones.

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.

Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction:

The efficacy of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is well established. However, it is not known which of the three most commonly used alpha-blockers (tamsulosin, alfuzosin and silodosin) is the most efficacious. With this study we aimed to assess the efficacy of the three commonly used alpha-blockers as MET for distal ureter stones.

Materials and Methods:

For this review, we searched multiple databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, OviD SP, CINAHL, and web of science to identify all the relevant randomized studies comparing the efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and silodosin. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were followed while conducting this review and the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175706).

Results:

In this review, 31 studies with 7077 patients were included. Compared to placebo all the treatment groups were more effective for both stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET). For both SER and SET, silodosin had the highest SUCRA (94.8 and 90.4) values followed by alfuzosin (58.8 and 64.9) and tamsulosin (46.2 and 44.5). The incidence of postural hypotension was similar with all the drugs, whereas, the incidence of retrograde ejaculation was significantly higher for silodosin. Overall confidence for each comparison group in this review ranged from “very low” to “moderate” according to the CINeMA approach.

Conclusion:

Among the three commonly used alpha-blockers silodosin is the most efficacious drug as MET for lower ureter stones followed by alfuzosin and tamsulosin.

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.

Evaluation of the efficacy of masturbation on distal ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of masturbation on the spontaneous expulsion of distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 128 men with distal ureteral stones were randomly divided into 3 groups. All patients received standard medical therapy. Patients in group 1 (n = 43) were instructed to masturbate at least 3-4 times a week, patients in group 2 (n = 41) received tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and patients in group 3 (controls, n = 44) received standard medical therapy alone. Rates of expulsion, need for analgesic, and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 37 ± 5.0, 37.6 ± 4.6, and 38.4 ± 6.8 years, respectively (p = 0.7). The mean stone size in each group was 6.93 ± 1.1 mm, 7.1 ± 0.9 mm, and 6.87 ± 1.1 mm, respectively (p = 0.4). Spontaneous passage rates in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 81.4%, 80.5%, and 43.2%, respectively, and were significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.001) and group 2 (p = 0.001) when compared with group 3. Analgesic requirement in groups 1, 2, and 3 was 1.7 ± 0.6, 1.5 ± 0.6, and 1.8 ± 0.6 times per day, respectively, and was significantly lower in the tamsulosin group than in the control group (p = 0.004) CONCLUSION: Masturbation and tamsulosin increased the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size. Masturbating at least 3-4 times a week was as effective as tamsulosin. Masturbation and tamsulosin also reduced the need for ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy.

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.

Is tamsulosin effective for the passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some trials have stated that there is no benefit to tamsulosin administration for clearing ureteral stones, which is contrary to previous studies. To confirm the efficacy of tamsulosin for treating symptomatic ureteral stones, we performed this review.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all studied variables, including tamsulosin, urinary stones, expulsion, and side effects. In addition, for all patients and different stone sizes, the treatment efficacy, expulsion rate, and expulsion time were also recorded for this treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies involving 6436 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data synthesized from these studies indicated that tamsulosin improved the renal stone clearance rate (80.5% vs 70.5%; mean difference (MD), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.19; P <.00001) and reduced the expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -3.77 to -3.46; P ≤.00001). Regarding complications, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of the total side effects (MD, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; P = .10) or divided complications, including retrograde ejaculation (P = .01), hypotension (P = .52), dizziness (P = .07), diarrhea (P = .58), vomiting (P = .88), headache (P = .84), nausea (P = .91), and fatigue (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin should be strongly recommended for patients with ureteral stones to increase treatment efficacy. The side effects were not significantly different between the tamsulosin and control treatments.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

Ureteral colic is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Alpha-blockers are commonly used to improve stone passage through so-called medical expulsive therapy (MET), but their effectiveness remains controversial. This is an update of a 2014 Cochrane review; since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of alpha-blockers compared with standard therapy for ureteral stones 1 cm or smaller confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stone disease.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP to identify all published/unpublished and ongoing trials. We checked all references of included and review articles and conference proceedings for articles relevant to this review. We sent letters to investigators to request information about unpublished or incomplete studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of ureteral stone passage in adult patients that compared alpha-blockers versus standard therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were stone clearance and major adverse events; secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, use of diclofenac, hospitalisation, and surgical intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence on a per-outcome basis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies with 10,509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5787 participants used a placebo.Stone clearance: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.55; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that the likely effect is probably smaller (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 116 more (95% CI 51 more to 182 more) stone clearances per 1000 participants.Major adverse events: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may have little effect on major adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.96; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that alpha-blockers likely increase the risk of major adverse events slightly (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.86), corresponding to 29 more (95% CI 3 more to 75 more) major adverse events per 1000 participants.Patients treated with alpha-blockers may experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference (MD) -3.40 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), may use less diclofenac (MD -82.41, 95% CI -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence), and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 69 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI 93 fewer to 32 fewer) per 1000 participants. Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 28 fewer surgical interventions (95% CI 51 fewer to 2 more) per 1000 participants.A predefined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; P = 0.002) suggests that effects of alpha-blockers may vary with stone size, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones 5 mm or smaller versus 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones larger than 5 mm. We found no evidence suggesting possible subgroup effects based on stone location or alpha-blocker type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with ureteral stones, alpha-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that alpha-blockers may be less effective for smaller (5 mm or smaller) than for larger stones (greater than 5 mm).

Comparative efficacy of tamsulosin versus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of tamsulosin and tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones.

Patients and Methods:

This was a prospective study performed between December 2014 and February 2016. A total of 123 adult patients (>18 years of age) presenting with distal ureteric stones sized 6–10 mm were randomized to treatment with tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily (Group A) or tadalafil10 mg once daily (Group B). Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The stone expulsion rate was the primary endpoint. Time to stone expulsion, number of colic episodes, analgesic use, number of hospital visits for pain, endoscopic treatment, and adverse effects of the drugs were noted. Statistical analyses were done using Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test.

Results:

A total of 61 patients were included in tamsulosin group and 62 patients in tadalafil group. A statistically insignificant difference was found for stone clearance rate between both groups as a whole (Group A-73.77%, Group B-69.35%, P = 0.690) as well as when we considered both subgroups (A1-78.05%, B1-75.0%, P = 0.802; A2-65.0%, B2-55.6%, P = 0.741). All the primary and secondary outcome measures were more in favour of stones ≤8 mm size than stones >8 mm size. No statistical difference was found for adverse drug effects except for retrograde ejaculation, which was significantly high in tamsulosin group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

This study showed that although tamsulosin is more effective for stone clearance than tadalafil, but this difference was not significant (P = 0.690).

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.

Sexual intercourse as a new option in the medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteral stones in males: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of sexual intercourse on the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size.

METHODS

A total of 190 male patients with distal ureteral stones were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group 1 were administered tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day (n = 60). Patients in group 2 were asked to have sexual intercourse at least three times a week (n = 66). Patients in group 3 received standard medical therapy alone and acted as the controls (n = 64). The expulsion rate was controlled after 2 and 4 weeks. Differences between the groups were analyzed statistically by the Chi-square and Student's t test. p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 34.4 ± 13.5 (18-60), 38.6 ± 14.1 (18-63), and 36.92 ± 12.4 (18-59) years, respectively (p > 0.05). The mean stone size was 7.09 ± 1.4 mm in group 1, 7.01 ± 1.4 mm in group 2, and 7.1 ± 1.3 mm in group 3 (p > 0.05). Spontaneous passage rates in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 81.6, 81.8, and 51.5%, respectively, and it was significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.0394) and group 2 (p = 0.0350). There was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.9925). The analgesic needs in groups 1, 2, and 3 were found to be 1.3 ± 0.4, 1.2 ± 0.6, and 1.4 ± 0.4 times, respectively, and were significantly lower in the sexual intercourse group than in the control group (p = 0.0276).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin and sexual intercourse increase the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size. At least three sexual intercourses per week seem to be at least as effective as tamsulosin. Sexual intercourse also reduces the need for analgesics in ureteric colic due to ureteral stones.

To compare the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones

Aims and Objectives:

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin for the distal ureteral stone. This study assessed the spontaneous passage and expulsion of the stone.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, from May 2013 to May 2014. A total number of 136 patients diagnosed as distal ureteric stone (US) of size <10 mm were included in this study. It was divided into two groups (I and II) out of which 36 cases were excluded. Group I received tablet tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and Group II received alfuzosin 10 mg/day. The efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as an adjunctive medical therapy was determined.

Results:

Both the drugs can be safely used for the distal USs. The stone expulsion rate was seen in 36 patients (72.0%) in Group I, and in 34 patients (68.0%) in Group II (P = 0.545). The passage of stones noticed by 32 patients in each Groups I and II (P = 1.000). The mean number of pain attacks was 2.91 ± 1.01 for Group I, and 1.8 ± 0.83 for Group II (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Thus, we propagate the use of alfuzosin significantly lower number of pain attacks. The drug-related side-effects were postural hypertension (four in Group I and one in Group II) and retrograde ejaculation (eight in Group I, and one in Group II). Thus, the difference was statistically significant in terms of retrograde ejaculation but insignificant for postural hypotension.

Conclusion:

There is no difference between both medications in term of efficacy (passing stones) for the management of distal ureteral stones. Both medications are safe and effective. In addition, alfuzosin was better tolerated than tamsulosin as it has fewer side effects.

Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography for Severity of Hydronephrosis and Its Importance in Renal Colic

Introduction

Supporting an “ultrasound-first” approach to evaluating renal colic in the emergency department (ED) remains important for improving patient care and decreasing healthcare costs. Our primary objective was to compare emergency physician (EP) ultrasound to computed tomography (CT) detection of hydronephrosis severity in patients with suspected renal colic. We calculated test characteristics of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound for detecting ureteral stones or ureteral stone size >5mm. We then analyzed the association of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound, stone size >5mm, and proximal stone location with 30-day events.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study of ED patients with suspected renal colic undergoing CT. Subjects had an EP-performed ultrasound evaluating for the severity of hydronephrosis. A chart review and follow-up phone call was performed.

Results

We enrolled 302 subjects who had an EP-performed ultrasound. CT and EP ultrasound results were comparable in detecting severity of hydronephrosis (x²=51.7, p<0.001). Hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound was predictive of a ureteral stone on CT (PPV 88%; LR+ 2.91), but lack of hydronephrosis did not rule it out (NPV 65%). Lack of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound makes larger stone size >5mm less likely (NPV 89%; LR− 0.39). Larger stone size > 5mm was associated with 30-day events (OR 2.30, p=0.03).

Conclusion

Using an ultrasound-first approach to detect hydronephrosis may help physicians identify patients with renal colic. The lack of hydronephrosis on ultrasound makes the presence of a larger ureteral stone less likely. Stone size >5mm may be a useful predictor of 30-day events.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (P < 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) (P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones <5 mm in size (P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones (P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones >5 mm (P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones (P < 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P < 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones >5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10.

Conclusion

The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.

The efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists in treatment of distal ureteral stones in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were searched up to January 2016. All randomized controlled trials and all cohort studies in which patients were randomized to receive either adrenergic alpha-antagonists or placebo for ureteral stones were identified. The outcome measures assessed were overall stone expulsion rate (primary), expulsion time (secondary), and treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

Five trials with a total of 406 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. According to the doses of adrenergic alpha-antagonists, the pooling effects of adrenergic alpha-antagonists were analyzed, with a higher expulsion rate obtained than in controls, the stone expulsion rate (OR=2.70, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.91, P=0.001). Adrenergic alpha-antagonists statistically did not significantly decrease the number of the stone expulsion time with the placebo, the stone expulsion time (SMD=-4.65, 95% CI -9.76 to 0.45, P=0.07). Safety assessments included common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR=2.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.48, P=0.17). Compared with placebos, there was a higher stone expulsion rate with the adrenergic alpha-antagonists; in addition, fewer adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis may suggest that adrenergic alpha-antagonists are a safe and effective medical expulsive therapy choice for ureteral stones in pediatric patients. As the level of classification of evidence-based medicine, the level of evidence of our article is Ia. But it remains to need a large-scale multicenter randomized controlled study to be further confirmed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

The level of evidence of our study is V.

Alpha blockers in the management of ureteric lithiasis: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Effective medical expulsion for ureteric stones with α-blockers offers numerous advantages over surgical alternatives. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain and with the publication of new trial data, the available evidence requires reappraisal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of α-blockers the management of ureteric lithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature, with predefined search criteria, was conducted using PubMed and Embase. All randomised trials comparing α-blocker monotherapy to placebo or standard therapy were included. Stone expulsion rate was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were time to stone expulsion, analgesic usage and pain scores. Subgroup analyses assessed individual adrenergic antagonists and variations in standard therapy. Sensitivity analysis was based on stone location, stone size, Cochrane Risk of Bias score and study protocol. Summary effects were calculated using a random-effect model and presented as Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcome measures, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies randomising 6654 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Stone expulsion rates improved with α-blockers (RR, 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.61). Contrast enhanced funnel showed evidence of publication bias. Stone expulsion time was 3.99 days (CI -4.75 to -3.23) shorter with α-blockers. Similarly, patients required 106.53 mg [CI -148.20 to -64.86] less diclofenac compared with control/placebo, and had 0.80 [CI -1.07 to -0.54] fewer pain episodes. Visual Analogue Scores were also reduced, -2.43 [CI -3.87 to -0.99]. All formulations of α-antagonists all demonstrated beneficial effects over conservative treatment/placebo. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant effects of stone location, stone size and study design.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite the opposing results of recently published trial, current evidence continues to demonstrate a potential benefit of α-blocker treatment particularly for distal stones over 5 mm.

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

 Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible. : Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.

RESULTS

 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference -3.79 days, -4.45 to -3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (-0.74 episodes, -1.28 to -0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

 Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

 PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

Tamsulosin versus tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: A prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin and tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized study was conducted at the Department of Urology of Bir Hospital over a period of 12 months in patients with distal ureteral stones sized 5 to 10 mm. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: group A received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and group B received tadalafil 10 mg at bedtime for 2 weeks. Stone expulsion rate, number of ureteric colic episodes and pain score, analgesic requirements, and adverse drug effects were noted in both groups. Statistical analyses were performed by using Student t-test and chi-square test.

RESULTS

Altogether 85 patients, 41 in group A and 44 in group B, were enrolled in the study. The patients' average age was 31.72±12.63 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 1.5:1. Demographic profiles, stone size, and baseline investigations were comparable between the 2 groups. The stone expulsion rate was significantly higher in the tadalafil group than in the tamsulosin group (84.1% vs. 61.0%, p=0.017). Although the occurrence of side effects was higher with tadalafil, this difference was not significant (p=0.099). There were no serious adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Tadalafil has a significantly higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin when used as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones sized 5-10 mm. Both drugs are safe, effective, and well tolerated with minor side effects.

Managing Small Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Study on Follow-Up, Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Conservative Management vs. Early Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The management of ureteral calculi has evolved over the past decades with the advent of new surgical and medical treatments. The current guidelines support conservative management as a possible approach for ureteral stones sized = 10 mm.

OBJECTIVES

We purport to follow the natural history of ureteral stones managed conservatively in this retrospective study, and attempt to ascribe an estimated health-care and cost-effectiveness, from presentation to time of being stone-free.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

192 male and female patients with a single ureteral stone sized = 10 mm were included in this study. The clinical and cost-related outcome was analyzed for different stone sizes (0-4, 4-6 and 6-10 mm). The effectiveness of selected follow-up (FU) scans was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Stone size was found to be related to the degree of hydronephrosis and to the likelihood of need for a surgical management. Conservative management was found to be clinically effective, as 88% of the patients did not require surgery for their stone. 96.1% of the patients with a stone 0-4mm managed to expel their ureteral stone. Bigger ureteral stones were found to be more costly. The cost-effectiveness of the single FU scans was found to be related to their efficiency, while the global cost-effectiveness of conservative management vs. early surgery was higher for smaller stones (26.8 vs. 17.32% for stones 0-4 vs. 6-10 mm).

CONCLUSION

Conservative management is clinically effective with a significant cost-benefit, particularly for the subgroup of stones sized 0-4 mm, where a need for FU scans is in dispute.

Outcome of α-blockers, with or without methylprednisolone combination, in medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteric stones: A prospective randomised study

Objectives

To compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and their combinations with methylprednisolone, in the medical management of lower ureteric stones.

Patients and methods

Between September 2012 and June 2014, patients diagnosed with a single lower ureteric stone of ⩽10 mm (longest dimension) were enrolled. Patients with urinary tract infection, severe hydronephrosis, pregnancy, hypertension, diabetes, ulcer disease, or renal insufficiency were excluded. According to the medication added to the analgesic anti-inflammatory, patients were stratified into four groups, with 53 patients in each. Group I patients received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and those in Group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and methylprednisolone 8 mg. Group III patients received alfuzosin 10 mg and those in Group IV received alfuzosin 10 mg and methylprednisolone 8 mg. Treatment was continued until stone expulsion or to a maximum of 2 weeks. The patients’ demographics, stone criteria, and stone-free rates were calculated and analysed.

Results

The mean (SD) maximum stone dimension was 7.8 (1.5), 8.1 (1.3), 7.9 (1.6) and 8.0 (1.4) mm in Groups I, II, III and IV, respectively. Groups II and IV had significantly higher stone-free rates than Groups I and III (P < 0.05), whilst there were no statistically significant differences between Groups I and III or between Groups II and IV. There was no statistical difference among the four groups for the time to stone expulsion. Three patients in Group II and two patients in Group IV developed transient hyperglycaemia, which resolved after cessation of methylprednisolone.

Conclusions

The combination of alfuzosin or tamsulosin with methylprednisolone seems to be effective and safe for managing lower ureteric stones of <1 cm.

Sildenafil citrate as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

Objective

To study the effect of sildenafil citrate on spontaneous passage of distal ureteric stones (DUS).

Patients and methods

This was a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled study of 100 patients with DUS. Inclusion criteria were: male, age 18–65 years, normal renal function, and a single radiopaque unilateral DUS of 5–10 mm. Patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups, one that received placebo and the other that received 50 mg sildenafil citrate once daily. Both investigators and patients were masked to the type of treatment. Patients self-administered the medication until spontaneous passage of the DUS. In patients where there was uncontrolled pain, fever, an increase in serum creatinine of >1.8 mg/dL, progressive hydronephrosis or no further progress after 4 weeks, a decision was taken for further treatment.

Results

In all, 47 and 49 patients were available for analysis in both the placebo and sildenafil citrate groups; respectively. Both groups were comparable for age and stone characteristics. Spontaneous expulsion occurred in 19 of 47 patients (40.4%) in the placebo group and in 33 of 49 (67.3%) in the sildenafil citrate group (P = 0.014). The mean time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in the sildenafil citrate group (P < 0.001). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that receiving sildenafil citrate was the only independent factor that had a significant impact on stone passage with a hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5–4.8; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Sildenafil citrate enhances spontaneous passage of 5–10 mm DUS.

Efficacy and safety of silodosin in the medical expulsion therapy for distal ureteral calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Using a selective α-adrenoceptor blocker for medical expulsive therapy (MET) is an effective treatment approach widely used for ureteral stones. The aim of the review was to assess the efficacy and safety of silodosin in medical expulstion therapy compared with placebo and tamsulosin.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that compared silodosin with a placebo or tamsulosin for ureteral calculi.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving a total of 1048 patients were used in the analysis, which compared silodosin with placebo and tamsulosin. We found that silodosin was effective in treating ureteral calculi in our meta-analysis and was superior to tamsulosin in its efficacy. The expulsion rate of all ureteral stones (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08, 2.36, P = 0.02), the expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.70, 4.67, P < 0.0001) and the expulsion time (days) of distal ureteral stones (standard mean difference (SMD) -4.71, 95% CI -6.60, -2.83, P < 0.00001) indicated that silodosin was more effective than the placebo. Moreover, expulsion rate (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.70, 3.78, P < 0.00001), expulsion time (days) (SMD -2.64, 95% CI -3.64, -1.64, P < 0.00001) and pain episodes (P < 0.00001) indicated that silodosin was more effective than the tamsulosin. Even though silodosin had a significant increase in abnormal ejaculation compared with tamsulosin, no significant differences were observed for complications (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.58, 1.74, P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated that silodosin was superior to placebo or tamsulosin in the efficacy for distal ureteral calculi with better control of pain. The safety profile of silodosin was similar to tamsulosin though retrograde ejaculation was worse for silodosin use. We conclude that silodosin might have potential as a MET for ureteral stones.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of silodosin (8 mg) vs tamsulosin (0.4 mg), as a medical expulsive therapy, in the management of distal ureteric stones (DUS) in terms of stone clearance rate and stone expulsion time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomised study was conducted on 115 patients, aged 21-55 years, who had unilateral DUS of ⩽10 mm. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 received silodosin (8 mg) and Group 2 received tamsulosin (0.4 mg) daily for 1 month. The patients were followed-up by ultrasonography, plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder, and computed tomography (in some cases).

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher stone clearance rate of 83% in Group 1 vs 57% in Group 2 (P = 0.007). Group 1 also showed a significant advantage for stone expulsion time and analgesic use. Four patients, two in each group, discontinued the treatment in first few days due to side-effects (orthostatic hypotension). No severe complications were recorded during the treatment period. Retrograde ejaculation was recorded in nine and three patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that silodosin is more effective than tamsulosin in the management of DUS for stone clearance rates and stone expulsion times. A multicentre study on larger scale is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of silodosin.

Naftopidil versus flopropione as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: results of a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial

PURPOSE

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of naftopidil as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for patients with distal ureteral stones.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients presenting with a single distal ureteral stone ≤10 mm were randomly assigned to receive either naftopidil (75 mg of naftopidil once in the morning and placebo twice a day) or flopropione (80 mg three times a day). The primary end point was time to stone expulsion calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Secondary end points were the percentages of patients who required analgesics, hospital admission, and surgery, the number of working days lost to the disease, and treatment safety.

RESULTS

Overall, three patients were excluded from the final analysis. No significant differences were noted in age, stone size, and stone side between the treatment arms. The median time to stone expulsion was 8 days [95 % confidence interval (CI), 3-16] for the naftopidil group, and this was significantly less than the 18 days (95 % CI, 11 to not reached) for the flopropione group (p = 0.03). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard of expulsion was 1.8-fold higher for the naftopidil group than for the flopropione group after adjustment for age, sex, stone side, and stone size. No significant differences were noted in the secondary end points.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of naftopidil significantly improved time to stone expulsion in patients with distal ureteral stones ≤10 mm. We believe that this is the first multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating the efficacy of naftopidil for MET.

Update on medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: Beyond alpha-blockers

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been described as an effective conservative treatment option in the initial management of small distal ureteral stones. Therapies that have been investigated include alpha-blockers, calcium channel blockers, corticosteroids, and most recently phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5) inhibitors. While alpha-blockers are currently the only recommended monotherapy, corticosteroids have received increased attention as a potential useful adjunct in the medical management of distal stones. PDE5 inhibitors are a novel treatment alternative, requiring further investigation. This review provides an overview of recent MET best practices, with a focus on novel therapies beyond alpha-blockers.

Acute management of symptomatic nephrolithiasis

Over half a million patients present to emergency departments and nearly 3 million patients visit healthcare providers annually due to problems associated with urolithiasis. Despite updated guidelines from the American Urological Association and European Association of Urology for the evaluation and management of nephrolithiasis, considerable variability still exists regarding treatment for acute symptomatic upper urinary tract stones. Therefore, this article will review the current evaluation and management of acute symptomatic nephrolithiasis. Initial management includes analgesia and antiemetics. Additionally, a urinalysis and creatinine are required laboratory evaluations. Acute imaging with a non-contrast computed tomography (CT) scan is the diagnostic imaging modality of choice. However, concerns over radiation exposure have led towards low-dose and even ultra-low-dose protocols for the detection of urinary calculi. Low-dose non-contrast CT scans are now standard of care for the initial diagnosis of renal colic in patients with a body mass index ≤ 30. Medical expulsive therapy is recommended for patients with a ureteral calculus < 10 mm and no signs of infection. Emergency urinary decompression is mandatory for a specific subset of patients, especially those with infection. Although limited data exists, emergency ureteroscopy or even shock wave lithotripsy may also be therapeutic options.