Medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: tamsulosin versus silodosin


Submitted: July 9, 2014
Accepted: July 9, 2014
Published: June 30, 2014
Abstract Views: 3543
PDF: 1801
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • Vittorio Imperatore Department of Urology, Buon Consiglio Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Naples, Italy.
  • Ferdinando Fusco Department of Urology, Policlinico Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
  • Massimiliano Creta Department of Urology, Buon Consiglio Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Naples, Italy.
  • Sergio Di Meo Department of Urology, Buon Consiglio Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Naples, Italy.
  • Roberto Buonopane Department of Urology, Buon Consiglio Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Naples, Italy.
  • Nicola Longo Department of Urology, Policlinico Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
  • Ciro Imbimbo Department of Urology, Policlinico Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
  • Vincenzo Mirone Department of Urology, Policlinico Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin and silodosin in the context of medical expulsive therapy (MET) of distal ureteric stones. Patients and methods: Observational data were collected retrospectively from patients who received silodosin (N = 50) or tamsulosin (N = 50) as MET from January 2012 to January 2013. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged ≥ 18 years with a single, unilateral, symptomatic, radiopaque ureteric stone of 10 mm or smaller in the largest dimension located between the lower border of the sacroiliac joint and the vesico-ureteric junction. Stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, need for analgesics use, incidence of side effects were compared. Results: Stone-expulsion rate in the silodosin and in the tamsulosin groups were 88% and 82%, respectively (p not significant). Mean expulsion times were 6.7 and 6.5 days in the silodosin and tamsulosin group, respectively (p not significant). Mean number of pain episodes were 1.6 and 1.7 in the silodosin and tamsulosin group, respectively (p not significant). The mean number of analgesic requirement was 0.84 and 0.9 for the silodosin and tamsulosin group, respectively (p not significant). Overall, incidence of side effects was similar in both groups. Patients taking silodosin experienced an higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation but a lower incidence of side effects related to peripheral vasodilation when compared to patients taking tamsulosin. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significantly lower mean expulsion times and pain episodes in patients with stones ≤ 5 mm in both groups. Conclusions: Tamsulosin and silodosin are equally effective as MET for distal ureteric stones sized 10 mm or smaller. MET with silodosin is associatd with a lower incidence of side effects related to peripheral vasodilation but an higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation when compared to tamsulosin.

Imperatore, V., Fusco, F., Creta, M., Di Meo, S., Buonopane, R., Longo, N., Imbimbo, C., & Mirone, V. (2014). Medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: tamsulosin versus silodosin. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 86(2), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.2.103

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations


Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.