Efficacy and Safety of Boldine Combined with Phyllanthus niruri and Ononis spinosa in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones with Renal Colic: A Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effects and safety of boldine combined with Phyllanthus niruri and Ononis spinosa plus tamsulosin vs. tamsulosin alone in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteral calculi. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on 159 renal colic patients with distal ureteric stones (≤10 mm). Patients aged between 18 and 70 years or older with distal ureteral (below the sacroiliac joint) stones ≤10 mm (defined by the largest diameter in three planes) confirmed by urinary ultrasonography and/or native computed tomography (CT). Patients were divided into two groups: A and B. Patients in Group A received tamsulosin 0.4 mg plus boldine combined with Phyllanthus niruri and Ononis spinosa, while those in Group B received tamsulosin 0.4 mg. The rate of stone expulsion, duration of stone expulsion, the dose and the duration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesic use, and adverse effects of drugs were recorded. Results: No differences were reported in demographic profiles between the two groups. The stone expulsion rate in Group A (84.8%) was higher in comparison to Group B (52.5%); the mean time of stone expulsion was 16.33 ± 4.75 days in Group A and 19.33 ± 6.42 days in Group B. The mean requirement time of analgesia was significantly less in Group A, 2.42 ± 2.56, than in Group B, 6.25 ± 3.05. Drug-related adverse effects (headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, postural hypotension, backache, and running nose) were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: Tamsulosin plus boldine combined with Phyllanthus niruri and Ononis spinosa as medical expulsion therapy is more effective for distal ureteric stones with less need for analgesics and a shorter stone expulsion time than tamsulosin alone.

The Effect of Preoperative Tamsulosin on Ureteral Navigation, Operation, and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Urolithiasis is one of the most common diseases in the world, and at present, ureteroscopy (URS) is the first choice for its treatment. Although the effect is good, there is a risk of insertion failure of ureteroscope. Tamsulosin, as an α-receptor blocker, has the function of relaxing ureteral muscles, and can help stones to be discharged from ureteral orifice. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of preoperative tamsulosin on ureteral navigation, operation, and safety. METHODS: This study was conducted and reported according to the meta-analysis extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies. Data were extracted according to the PRISMA principles. We collected and combined randomized controlled trial and researches in reviews of preoperative tamsulosin to explore the effect of preoperative tamsulosin on ureteral navigation, operation, and safety. A data synthesis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software (Cochrane). Heterogeneity was mainly evaluated with I2 tests. Key metrics include: success rate of ureteral navigation, time of URS, stone-free rate, and postoperative symptoms. RESULT: We summarized and analyzed 6 studies. We noted a statistically significant improvement in the success rate of ureteral navigation (Mantel-Haenszel [M-H], odds ratio [OR]: 3.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.34, 6.12], p < 0.01) and stone-free rate (M-H, OR: 2.25, 95% CI: [1.16, 4.36], p = 0.02) with tamsulosin preoperatively. At the same time, we also observed that postoperative fever (M-H, OR: 0.37, 95% CI: [0.16, 0.89], p = 0.03) and postoperative analgesia (M-H, OR: 0.21, 95% CI: [0.05, 0.92], p = 0.04) were also reduced because of preoperative tamsulosin. CONCLUSION: Preoperative tamsulosin can not only increase the one-time success rate of ureteral navigation and the stone-free rate of URS but also reduce the incidence of postoperative adverse symptoms such as postoperative fever and postoperative pain.

Tamsulosin vs. Tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm. The best drug for MET is still uncertain. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of tadalafil and tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET) and the side effect profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception until April 2023. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Eleven publications with 1,330 patients were included. We observed that tadalafil has a higher SER (OR 0.55, CI 95% 0.38;0.80, p=0.02, I2=52%) and the same efficacy in SET (MD 1.07, CI 95% -0.25; 2.39, p=0.11, I2=84%). No differences were found when comparing side effects as headache, backache, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. CONCLUSION: Tadalafil has a higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy for patients with distal stones from 5 to 10 mm without differences in side effects.

The Efficacy of Mirabegron in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of mirabegron (50 mg daily) as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in adults. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to July 2021 to collect the clinical trials. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of four studies were included, involving 398 patients: 197 patients in mirabegron group and 201 patients in control group. The meta-analysis showed that the stone expulsion rate was higher in the mirabegron group than in the control group (OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.40; p=0.002). Subgroup analysis identified that the stone expulsion rate of patients with stone size <5/6 mm was significantly higher than that of patients with stone size ≥5/6 mm (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72; p=0.006). But no significant difference was identified between the mirabegron group and the control group for the stone expulsion interval (MD: -1.16, 95% CI: -3.56 to 1.24; p=0.35). In terms of pain episodes, the mirabegron group was significantly lower than that of the control group (MD: -0.34, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.19; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The medical expulsive therapy with mirabegron had a significant effect in improving the stone expulsion rate for patients with ureteral stones, especially in those whose stone size <5/6 mm. Mirabegron had no effect on the stone expulsion interval but did decrease the pain episodes.

Efficacy of Mirabegron as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Today, medical expulsive therapy (MET) is more effective and commonly used in distal ureteral stones when compared with conservative treatments. Many treatments, namely, alpha-adrenergic blockers and calcium channel blockers, prostaglandin synthesis inhibitors, glyceryl trinitrate, and steroids, have been, therefore, utilized to mitigate such complications and accelerate stone expulsion. Several animal and human studies revealed the presence of ß3-receptors in the ureter and bladder, where stimulating these receptors could relax the distal ureteral segment. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of use of mirabegron as MET for distal ureteral stones (intramural and extramural). METHODS: This is a prospective randomized controlled study including 90 patients who had distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm and were evaluated between January and June 2020. The patients were classified into 3 groups: group (A) 30 patients: mirabegron 50 mg d-1 + diclofenac Na 100 mg tab (to be taken only during colic episodes), group (B) 30 patients: tamsulosin HCL 0.4 mg cap + diclofenac Na 100 mg tab (to be taken only during colic episodes), and group (C) 30 patients: diclofenac Na 100 mg tab only (to be taken only during colic episodes). Age, sex, stone size, laterality, and grade of ureterohydronephrosis were recorded. Patients were observed for 30 days, and ureteroscopy was completed for those with nonexpulsed stones. Follow-up parameters included number of renal colic episodes, duration of medical therapy, stone expulsion time, and stone expulsion rate (SER). RESULTS: In the group (A), 2 (6.6%) patients were excluded due to nasal congestion, and 1 (3.3%) patient was excluded due to a 20-mm Hg systolic blood pressure increase. Four (13.3%) patients in group (B) were noncompliant on medical treatment. In addition, 2 (6.6%) patients in group (A), 1 (3.3%) patient in group (B), and 5 (16.6%) patients in group (C) who did not attend follow-up examinations were excluded from the study. The SER increased significantly in group (A) and (B) when compared with group (C). The mean time of stone expulsion was about 15, 25, and 12 days for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and there was a significant statistical difference (p value = 0.006) among the 3 groups. The mean number of renal colic episodes of group (A) of patients was 1.8 times, while that of group (B) was 2.6 times and that of group (C) was 2.16 times with no significant statistical difference after comparing the 3 groups (p value = 0.660). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with mirabegron appears to be a safe and effective medical expulsion therapy for distal ureteric stones and is better than tamsulosin.

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 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.

[Dissolution of uric acid stones in the ureter].

INTRODUCTION: Uric acid stones (UA), consisting of uric acid/uric acid dihydrate, occur in 6.1-15.1% of all cases of urolithiasis in industrialized countries. At the same time, the frequency of these stones is directly dependent on age. Thus, the incidence of UA reaches 40% in men over 80 years of age and 27.3% in women over 90 years of age. UA are the only stones that are amenable to dissolution therapy with the use of citrate salts that alkalinize urine pH. A number of authors and European Association of Urology guidelines consider stone dissolution as a first-line therapy in the treatment of patients with UA, both as monotherapy and in combination with surgical procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of conservative treatment of 86 patients aged 28 to 78 years with radiolucent ureteral stones ranging in size from 3 to 25 mm and a density of 133 to 728 HU, who underwent 89 courses of stone dissolution therapy from 2011 to 2018, are presented in the article. They had no obstruction or were prestented. There were 52 men (n=55 courses) and 34 women (n=34 courses). RESULTS: In 78 out of 89 clinical cases (87.6%), stone-free status was obtained within 14 to 181 days. Most often the duration of therapy was 30 days. In 11 (12.4%) cases the treatment was considered ineffective. However, only in 4 (4.5%) patients the stone size did not change, while in 7 (7.9%) cases it decreased. The results of the study suggest the high efficiency of citrate therapy in patients with ureteral stones in case of unobstructed urine outflow (including those with stents), which is comparable to surgical treatment.

Mirabegron in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To observe the efficacy and safety of Mirabegron in patients with distal, ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 90 patients with distal ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm were prospectively randomized into two groups. Forty-five cases in the study group and 45 cases as control. The stone-free rates (SFRs) and renal colic episodes between two groups were compared at the 1st, 2nd and 4th week end by imaging examinations. RESULT: All of 90 patients were randomly assigned to two groups. In patients with ≤ 5 mm stones, the SFRs in the 1st week (63.6% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.040), the 2nd week (86.4% vs. 54.2%, P = 0.018), and the 4th week (90.9% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.046) after treatment were all significantly higher than that in the control group by the stratification analysis of stone size. Even though SFRs were all higher for patients with > 5 mm stones in study group, there was no statistically significant difference (All P > 0.05). In terms of renal colic episodes, the frequency of occurrence of the study group was significantly lower than that of the control group and need less antalgic. CONCLUSIONS: The MET with Mirabegron has a significant role in improve SFR for the patients with distal ureteral stones ≤ 5 mm and no effect in > 5 mm stones. Furthermore, Mirabegron reduces the need for antalgic in ≤ 10 mm stones with low incidence of adverse effects.

Fragility index of urological literature regarding medical expulsive treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The role of medical expulsive treatment (MET) is controversial. Fragility index is an additional metric to assess randomized controlled trials (RCTs) outcome validity and indicates how many patients would be required to convert a trial from being statistically significant, to not significant. The larger is the FI, the better the trial's data. The aim of this study is to assess FI of RCTs regarding MET for ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. RCTs, reporting stone expulsion as a dichotomous outcome, showing statistical significance were eligible. FI (the number of patients needed to change from a non-event to event group, to lose statistical significance) and Fragility quotient (FI divided by total sample size), were calculated while Pearson's correlation and Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs were eligible, with median FI = 3.5 and fragility quotient = 0.042, median sample size = 81, median journal impact factor = 1.73 and median reported p value = 0.008. In 33.3% of the studies, number of patients lost during follow-up was larger than FI, while in 13.89% of the studies, FI was 0, indicating use of inappropriate statistical method. Pearson's correlation showed significant positive association between FI and sample size (r = 0.981), number of events (r = 0.982) and impact factor (r = 0.731), while no association was found with p value or publication year. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, a calculated FI of 3.5 indicates that findings from RCTs on MET for ureteral stones are fragile and should be interpreted in combination with clinical thinking and expertise.

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.

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.

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.

Gilaburu extract (Viburnum opulus Linnaeus) is as effective as Tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteral calculi.

BACKGROUND: To compare the extract of Gilaburu (Viburnum opulus Linnaeus) and Tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) in patients with distal ureteral calculi of 10 mm or less. METHODS: Data of 86 patients were prospectively collected. The patients were divided into two groups. In the first group, Viburnum opulus 1000 mg peroral 3 × 2 and diclofenac 50 mg peroral on-demand (n = 43), in the second group Tamsulosin 0.4 mg peroral 1 × 1 and diclofenac 50 mg peroral on-demand (n = 43) was given for MET in patients with distal ureteral calculi. Stone expulsion rates, time until expulsion, additional analgesic requirement, need for emergency admission, need for additional treatment were evaluated. In addition, subgroup analyses of ≤5 and 5-10 mm were also performed. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in terms of stone expulsion rates and time until the expulsion in all stones. Additional analgesic requirement and need for emergency admission were found to be lower in the Viburnum opulus group (37.2% vs 65.1%, P = .017 and 11.6% vs 34.8%, P = .02, respectively). In subgroup analyses, while stone expulsion rates were similar in subgroups, it was found shorter in the time until expulsion, lower additional analgesic requirement and need for emergency admission in V. opulus group than Tamsulosin group in 5-10 mm stone size subgroup (7.1 ± 4.2 vs 11.8 ± 5.2, P = .005, 32.2% vs 77.7%, P = .001 and 12.9% vs 40.7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: V. opulus can be used effectively and safely for the treatment of MET in distal ureteral calculi.

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 of tamsulosin versus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy on stone expulsion in patients with distal ureteral stones: A randomized double-blind clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of tadalafil, tamsulosin, and placebo as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 132 renal colic patients with distal ureteric stones (≤10mm) over a period of 12 months. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group A received tamsulosin 0.4mg, in group B received tadalafil 10mg, and in group C received placebo. Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The rate of stone expulsion, duration of stone expulsion, the dose and the duration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesic use, and adverse effects of drugs were recorded. RESULTS: Demographic profiles were comparable between the 3 groups. Although the stone expulsion rate in group A (72.7%) was higher in comparison to group B(63.6%) and group C(56.8%), it was not considered statistically significant (P=0.294). Shorter mean time to stone expulsion was significantly observed in group A (17.75±75), than group B(21.13±1.17) and group C(22.25±1.18) (P=0.47). The mean number of analgesic use was 9.8±5.09 days in group A, 14.6±7.9 days in group B, and 12.6±22.25 days in group C, this difference was significant (P=0.004). The analgesic requirement (doses of NSAIDs and pethidine) in group A was significantly lower than other groups (P< 0.05). Also, patients in group A reported fewer headaches compared to other groups (P=0.011). CONCLUSION: Tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy is more effective for distal ureteric stones with less need for analgesics and less stone expulsion time than tadalafil.

Adjunctive medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive medical expulsive therapy (MET) with tamsulosin for the promotion of stone fragments clearance for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted by systematic search for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases in January 2020, which compared tamsulosin with either placebo or non-placebo control for repeated ESWL. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate (SFR), the second endpoints were stone clearance time and complications. The quality assessment of included studies was performed by using the Cochrane System and Jadad score. RESULTS: 7 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Tamsulosin provided higher SFR (for stones larger than 1cm, OR: 5.56, p=0.0003), except for patients with stones less than 1cm. For patients with renal stones (OR: 2.97, p=0.0005) or upper ureteral stones (OR: 3.10, p=0.004), tamsulosin can also provide a higher SFR. In addition, tamsulosin provided a shorter stone clearance time (WMD: -9.40, p=0.03) and lower pain intensity (WMD=-17.01, p< 0.0001) and incidences of steinstrasse (OR: 0.37, p=0.0002). CONCLUSION: Adjunctive MET with tamsulosin is effective in patients with specific stone size or location that received repeated ESWL. However, no well-designed RCT that used computed tomography for the detection and assessment of residual stone fragments was found. More studies with high quality and the comparison between tamsulosin and secondary ESWL are needed in the future.

The role of Aescin versus Prednisolone in the management of symptomatic lower ureteral calculi: A comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aescin compared to prednisolone in the management of symptomatic distal ureteral stones. METHODS: The prospective comparative study was conducted from April 2016 to December 2019 at Al-Yarmouk teaching hospital, Baghdad after approval from the Iraqi Board of Urology and the Iraqi Urological Association, Iraq. It comprised patients with distal ureteral calculi presenting with acute ureteric colic who were managed in an outpatient setting. The sample was randomised into aescin group 1, prednisolone group 2 and placebo group 3. The treatment course lasted 10 days in each group. The treatment outcomes were pain relief, disappearance or decrease of upper tract dilatation, stone expulsion rate and adverse effects of the medications used. RESULTS: Of the 360 patients, there were 220(61%) males and 140(39%) females. The overall mean age was 39.33±8.54 years (range: 19-60 years). Each of the 3 groups had 120(33.3%) patients. Gender, stone size and calyceal system dilatation were not significantly different among the groups (p>0.05), but age was significantly higher in group 3 (p<0.05). Post-treatment, groups 1 and 2 showed significantly better outcomes compared to the placebo group 3 (p<0.00001), while group 1 was more effective than group 2 (p<0.05). In terms of stone expulsion rates, the difference was significant between the treatment and placebo groups (p<0.05), but not between the two treatment groups (p>0.05). Drug side effects were only reported in the prednisolone group 13(11%). CONCLUSIONS: Aescin was found to be effective and may even be used as a substitute for steroids as medical expulsive therapy.

Safety and efficacy of Tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy in pregnancy.

PURPOSE: Use of medical expulsive therapy (MET) is common practice in urology for the treatment of symptomatic urolithiasis, despite this its efficacy is debated. Its use in pregnancy is controversial. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Tamsulosin as a MET in pregnant women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified pregnant patients who presented with renal colic at the CHU de Québec from 2000 to 2015. We compared patients who received Tamsulosin as MET to a control group without MET. We evaluated efficacy as passage rate of lithiasis and necessity of intervention. We evaluated safety of the treatment according to fetal outcomes (birth weight, APGAR, gestational age). RESULTS: We evaluated 207 pregnant patients presenting renal colic, 69 patients in the MET group were compared to 138 patients in the control group. Of these, 48 (70%) in the Tamsulosin therapy group and 76 (56%) in the control group had proven urolithiasis. No significant difference was found for mean gestational age at birth, birth weight and APGAR. No sudden infant death syndrome was encountered in Tamsulosin group. There was no significant difference for length of hospital stay and need for surgical intervention. The spontaneous passage rate was 58% (25/48) in the MET group compared to 43% (29/76), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term utilisation of Tamsulosin as MET in second and third trimester of pregnancy is not associated with adverse maternal or infant outcomes. Moreover, there was no significant adjunct for the rate of stone passage.

Tamsulosin as a Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: Tamsulosin is widely administered as a medical expulsive therapy to facilitate stone passage in patients with ureteral calculi. Recently several large, multicenter, randomized controlled trials revealed conflicting results, which led to considerable uncertainty about the efficacy of tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar™ and the Cochrane Central Search Library databases up to June 2018. Two reviewers independently evaluated eligible randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of tamsulosin to treat ureteral stones. Study quality was assessed with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. RESULTS: Included in study were 56 randomized controlled trials in a total of 9,395 patients. The observed treatment effect indicated that tamsulosin was associated with a higher stone expulsion rate (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.35-1.55, p <0.01), a shorter stone expulsion time (weighted mean difference -0.73, 95% CI -1.00--0.45, p <0.01), a lesser incidence of ureteral colic (weighted mean difference -0.81, 95% CI -1.24--0.39, p <0.01) and fewer incidences of requiring subsequent intervention (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93, p = 0.017). Treatment with tamsulosin did not differ from a control group in the overall incidence of side effects (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86-1.51, p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis we observed a significant benefit in the stone expulsion rate for tamsulosin among patients with stones greater than 5 mm (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68, p <0.01) but no effect for stones 5 mm or less (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.68, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our current meta-analysis results indicate that tamsulosin is effective and relatively safe in patients with ureteral stone as a medical expulsive therapy to facilitate stone passage. It is suggested to administer it selectively in patients with 5 to 10 mm ureteral stones.