A comparative study of the efficacy of silodosin versus tamsulosin versus oral hydration therapy in medical expulsion therapy for ureteral calculi

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
D. Pal, Ankit Kumar, D. Sarkar
{"title":"A comparative study of the efficacy of silodosin versus tamsulosin versus oral hydration therapy in medical expulsion therapy for ureteral calculi","authors":"D. Pal, Ankit Kumar, D. Sarkar","doi":"10.4103/uros.uros_16_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The use of various alpha-receptor antagonists (α-blocker) drugs as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for spontaneous clearance of ureteral calculi of various sizes has been extensive in the last decade by urologists across the world. Among all, α-blocker tamsulosin has been used widely. In contrast silodosin which is recently introduced in the market and more selective alpha-receptor antagonist and cardioselective drug but it has not been used widely as MET. In this study, silodosin (8 mg), tamsulosin (0.4 mg), and oral hydration therapy were compared in terms of efficacy and safety as MET in the management of ureteric stone along with rate of stone clearance, expulsion time, analgesic requirements, and adverse effects for treating ureteral stones size between ≥4 mm and ≤10 mm in diameter. Materials and Methods: Prospective randomized study was conducted between September 2018 and August 2020 with a total of 240 patients (80 patients in each arm) in tertiary care center of eastern India. First group received a single dose of silodosin (8 mg) daily, second group received a single dose of tamsulosin (0.4 mg) daily and third group received oral hydration therapy for 4 weeks. Results: There is no difference in the stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET), and surgical intervention between tamsulosin, silodosin and oral hydration therapy group for ureteric stones ≤5 mm size. For ureteric stones of size 6 mm–10 mm, silodosin has better SER than tamsulosin with no difference in terms of SET. Analgesic requirement and pain episodes were more in the oral hydration group with no adverse effects (statistically significant). Conclusion: The proportion of passed-out stone was significantly higher among the patients treated with silodosin (65.0%) in comparison to other two groups (P < 0.05) with no difference in SET.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"33 1","pages":"19 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/uros.uros_16_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The use of various alpha-receptor antagonists (α-blocker) drugs as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for spontaneous clearance of ureteral calculi of various sizes has been extensive in the last decade by urologists across the world. Among all, α-blocker tamsulosin has been used widely. In contrast silodosin which is recently introduced in the market and more selective alpha-receptor antagonist and cardioselective drug but it has not been used widely as MET. In this study, silodosin (8 mg), tamsulosin (0.4 mg), and oral hydration therapy were compared in terms of efficacy and safety as MET in the management of ureteric stone along with rate of stone clearance, expulsion time, analgesic requirements, and adverse effects for treating ureteral stones size between ≥4 mm and ≤10 mm in diameter. Materials and Methods: Prospective randomized study was conducted between September 2018 and August 2020 with a total of 240 patients (80 patients in each arm) in tertiary care center of eastern India. First group received a single dose of silodosin (8 mg) daily, second group received a single dose of tamsulosin (0.4 mg) daily and third group received oral hydration therapy for 4 weeks. Results: There is no difference in the stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET), and surgical intervention between tamsulosin, silodosin and oral hydration therapy group for ureteric stones ≤5 mm size. For ureteric stones of size 6 mm–10 mm, silodosin has better SER than tamsulosin with no difference in terms of SET. Analgesic requirement and pain episodes were more in the oral hydration group with no adverse effects (statistically significant). Conclusion: The proportion of passed-out stone was significantly higher among the patients treated with silodosin (65.0%) in comparison to other two groups (P < 0.05) with no difference in SET.
西洛多辛、坦索罗辛与口服水化治疗输尿管结石药物排出疗效的比较研究
目的:在过去的十年中,世界各地的泌尿科医生广泛使用各种α受体拮抗剂(α受体阻滞剂)药物作为医学排出疗法(MET)来自然清除各种大小的输尿管结石。其中α-受体阻滞剂坦索罗辛应用广泛。相比之下,西洛多辛是最近上市的一种选择性较强的α受体拮抗剂和心脏选择性药物,但尚未作为MET广泛应用。本研究比较了西洛多辛(8mg)、坦索罗辛(0.4 mg)和口服水化治疗作为MET治疗输尿管结石的疗效和安全性,以及输尿管结石直径≥4mm至≤10mm的清除率、排出时间、镇痛需求和不良反应。材料与方法:前瞻性随机研究于2018年9月至2020年8月在印度东部三级医疗中心进行,共240例患者(每组80例)。第一组给予西洛多辛单剂量(8mg) /天,第二组给予坦索罗辛单剂量(0.4 mg) /天,第三组给予口服水化治疗,疗程4周。结果:输尿管结石≤5mm时,坦索罗辛、西洛多辛与口服水化治疗组在结石排出率(SER)、结石排出时间(SET)、手术干预等方面均无差异。对于尺寸为6 mm - 10 mm的输尿管结石,西洛多辛的SER优于坦索罗辛,但在SET方面没有差异。口服水合组的镇痛需求和疼痛发作次数更多,无不良反应(有统计学意义)。结论:西洛多辛组结石排出比例(65.0%)明显高于其他两组(P < 0.05), SET组差异无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信