Ahmed Abdellatif, Ahmed Mohamed, Amr Massoud, Ahmed Abd Elbary, Akram Elmarakbie
{"title":"伐地那非和坦索罗辛治疗输尿管支架相关症状:一项前瞻性比较研究","authors":"Ahmed Abdellatif, Ahmed Mohamed, Amr Massoud, Ahmed Abd Elbary, Akram Elmarakbie","doi":"10.5152/tud.2025.24111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of vardenafil, a phosphodi-esterase-5 inhibitor, and tamsulosin, an alpha-blocker, in the management of ureteral srtent-elated symptoms. Methods: A total of 208 patients who underwent ureteric stent placement after the removal of ureteric stones were enrolled and randomly divided to receive either var- denafil 10 mg daily or tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily for a duration of 3 weeks. The validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) was used to assess patients at baseline and after 3 weeks from starting the medications. Results: This study compared tamsulosin and vardenafil in 208 patients (101 vs. 107) with a mean age of 45.07 ± 9.5 years, predominantly male (67.4%); both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (P >.05). A notable statistical significant reduction in total scores from the first visit to the fourth visit (vardenafil: 136.03 to 85.01; tamsulosin: 129.9 to 97). Vardenafil showed a statistically significant improvement (P <.001) compared to tamsulosin across all USSQ domains except body pain, which has statistically significant improvement in the tamsulosin group. During the follow-up visits, vardenafil had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains; however, tamsu- losin had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains except in sexual health (P =.5). Side effects were mild, with retrograde ejaculation and hypotension in the tamsulosin group and headaches in the vardenafil group. Conclusion: Vardenafil showed promising results in controlling stent-related symptoms and can be considered an alternative or adjunct medication to tamsulosin in the management of stent-related symptoms; however, this needs further exploration in larger, multi-center studies to validate these findings and optimize patient outcomes in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"51 4","pages":"153-158"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12362527/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vardenafil and Tamsulosin in the Management of Ureteral Stent-Related Symptoms: A Prospective Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Abdellatif, Ahmed Mohamed, Amr Massoud, Ahmed Abd Elbary, Akram Elmarakbie\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/tud.2025.24111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of vardenafil, a phosphodi-esterase-5 inhibitor, and tamsulosin, an alpha-blocker, in the management of ureteral srtent-elated symptoms. Methods: A total of 208 patients who underwent ureteric stent placement after the removal of ureteric stones were enrolled and randomly divided to receive either var- denafil 10 mg daily or tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily for a duration of 3 weeks. The validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) was used to assess patients at baseline and after 3 weeks from starting the medications. Results: This study compared tamsulosin and vardenafil in 208 patients (101 vs. 107) with a mean age of 45.07 ± 9.5 years, predominantly male (67.4%); both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (P >.05). A notable statistical significant reduction in total scores from the first visit to the fourth visit (vardenafil: 136.03 to 85.01; tamsulosin: 129.9 to 97). Vardenafil showed a statistically significant improvement (P <.001) compared to tamsulosin across all USSQ domains except body pain, which has statistically significant improvement in the tamsulosin group. During the follow-up visits, vardenafil had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains; however, tamsu- losin had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains except in sexual health (P =.5). Side effects were mild, with retrograde ejaculation and hypotension in the tamsulosin group and headaches in the vardenafil group. Conclusion: Vardenafil showed promising results in controlling stent-related symptoms and can be considered an alternative or adjunct medication to tamsulosin in the management of stent-related symptoms; however, this needs further exploration in larger, multi-center studies to validate these findings and optimize patient outcomes in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"volume\":\"51 4\",\"pages\":\"153-158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12362527/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2025.24111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2025.24111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Vardenafil and Tamsulosin in the Management of Ureteral Stent-Related Symptoms: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of vardenafil, a phosphodi-esterase-5 inhibitor, and tamsulosin, an alpha-blocker, in the management of ureteral srtent-elated symptoms. Methods: A total of 208 patients who underwent ureteric stent placement after the removal of ureteric stones were enrolled and randomly divided to receive either var- denafil 10 mg daily or tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily for a duration of 3 weeks. The validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) was used to assess patients at baseline and after 3 weeks from starting the medications. Results: This study compared tamsulosin and vardenafil in 208 patients (101 vs. 107) with a mean age of 45.07 ± 9.5 years, predominantly male (67.4%); both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (P >.05). A notable statistical significant reduction in total scores from the first visit to the fourth visit (vardenafil: 136.03 to 85.01; tamsulosin: 129.9 to 97). Vardenafil showed a statistically significant improvement (P <.001) compared to tamsulosin across all USSQ domains except body pain, which has statistically significant improvement in the tamsulosin group. During the follow-up visits, vardenafil had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains; however, tamsu- losin had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains except in sexual health (P =.5). Side effects were mild, with retrograde ejaculation and hypotension in the tamsulosin group and headaches in the vardenafil group. Conclusion: Vardenafil showed promising results in controlling stent-related symptoms and can be considered an alternative or adjunct medication to tamsulosin in the management of stent-related symptoms; however, this needs further exploration in larger, multi-center studies to validate these findings and optimize patient outcomes in clinical practice.