Search

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones in adults. Patients-method: This is a prospective, randomized multicentric study. Patients who had ureter stones in size between 4 and 10 mm were assessed prospectively. Patients were divided into three groups with equal randomization. Group 1 was the control group; group 2 took silodosin 8 mg, and group 3 took mirabegron 50 mg once daily. Results: All 169 patients were included in the final analysis. The spontaneous expulsion rate was similar between groups. In patients with distal localization, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (7.1 ± 4.5 days) than the control (12 ± 8.7) (p = 0.034). In patients with stone size smaller than 6 mm, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (5.8 ± 4) than the control (12.2 ± 2.8) (p = 0.004); the analgesic requirement was less in the silodosin group (1.4 ± 1.3) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.8) (p = 0.028). Mirabegron had no effect on stone expulsion interval in any analysis. In patients with distal localization or stone size bigger or equal to 6 mm, the need for an analgesic was less in the mirabegron group (1.8 ± 1.9) (1.9 ± 1.8) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.3) (3.2 ± 1.8), respectively (p = 0.004) (p = 0.017). Conclusions: Silodosin or mirabegron does not improve the stone expulsion rate. Silodosin improves the stone expulsion interval and decreases the need for an analgesic or < 6 mm stones. Mirabegron has no effect on the stone expulsion interval, but decreases the need for an analgesic in patients with distal or sized ≥ 6 mm stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate efficiency and safety of adjunct tamsulosin and mirabegron therapy before semi-rigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones. Materials and methods: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind and multicentric study, participants were randomized into three groups. Group 1 was the control, participants in Group 2 used tamsulosin, and those in Group 3 used mirabegron. Operations were performed 7 days after drug administration. In all clinics, a 6/7.5-Fr ureteroscope with a laser power source for lithotripsy was used. Results: After excluding participants whose stones spontaneously passed, who discontinued medication due to adverse events and who were lost to follow-up, 186 participants were included in the final analysis. Mean age, gender, laterality, stone distribution and mean stone surface area were similar between groups. The number of participants requiring balloon dilatation was higher in the control group (23.8%) than in the tamsulosin (8.2%) and mirabegron (6.5%) groups (p = 0.006). Successful access rate was lower in the control group (81%) than in the tamsulosin (96.7%) and mirabegron (95.2%) groups (p = 0.003). Stone-free rate was lower in the control group (77.8%) than in the tamsulosin (90.2%) and mirabegron (95.2%) groups (p = 0.01). Complication rates were similar among groups. Conclusions: Tamsulosin or mirabegron use for 1 week before semi-rigid ureteroscope increases stone access and the stone-free rate. Tamsulosin or mirabegron can be used with safety and efficacy before ureteroscopy for ureteral stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]