The role of mirabegron in relieving double-J stent-related discomfort: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of 50 mg mirabegron once daily in relieving ureteral double-J (DJ) stent-related discomfort after ureteroscopy (URS) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 210 patients who underwent DJ ureteral stent insertion after URS or RIRS were randomized 1:1 to receive either no treatment (Group B) or mirabegron 50 mg once daily (Group A) during the stenting period. At time of stent removal, all patients were evaluated for stent-related symptoms using the Arabic translated and validated ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). The severity of stent-related symptoms (SRS) was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean age was 46.6 ±8.2 years in Group A and 44.7 ±9.4 (26-64) years in the control group (p = 0.13). The stone characteristics, stent size, and position were similar in both groups. Compared to the control group, the mirabegron group had significantly lower daytime frequency, nocturia and urgency (p = 0.028, p = 0.008 and p = 0.012, respectively). As for stent-related pain, Group A had significantly less flank and abdominal pain (p = 0.007 and p = 0.001, respectively). The mirabegron versus control group showed significant difference in mean analgesics use and quality of life (QoL) scores during the stenting period (p = 0.005 and p = 0.003, respectively). Three patients (2.9%) in Group A encountered minor adverse effects (two experienced dry mouth and one presented with constipation). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with indwelling DJ stent, postoperative mirabegron 50 mg use was effective and well-tolerated for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and stent-related pain.

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones: A randomized comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol in the management of high attenuation value upper ureteric stones compared with slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy. METHODS: This was a randomized trial enrolling patients with a single high attenuation value (≥1000 HU) upper ureteric stones between January 2019 and July 2019. Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy (54 patients) was applied at a rate of 30 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18-22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. Then, full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. Slow-rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy (47 patients) was applied at a rate of 60 shock waves/min with power ramping from 6 to 10 kV during the first 500 shock waves, then from 11 to 22 kV during the next 1000 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1500 shock waves. Up to three sessions were carried out with a follow up 3 months after the last session. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Perioperative data of the two protocols were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in preoperative data. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy after single (92.6% vs 23.4%) and multiple (96.3% vs 63.8%) sessions. Most complications were mild, with no significant difference between both groups (9.3% vs 12.8%; P = 0.573). Logistic regression analysis identified ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy protocol as the only significant independent factor for the stone-free rate (odds ratio 12.589, P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value upper ureteric stones is associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, and with mild complications that are comparable to those of standard shock wave lithotripsy.

Relation of baseline prostate volume to improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms due to tamsulosin monotherapy in benign prostatic hyperplasia: An exploratory, multicenter, prospective study.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between baseline prostate volume (PV) and the improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) induced by tamsulosin monotherapy after 2-year follow-up in Egyptian benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a prospective comparative multicenter study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-one BPH patients were included in the study from January 2014 to January 2017. The patients were divided according to their PV into two groups. Group A included patients with small-sized prostate (≤40 ml) and Group B included those with PV larger than 40 ml. Full evaluation was done at presentation. The patients are followed up at 6, 12, and 24 months of continued medical treatment with tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Data were coded and entered using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 24. Data were summarized using mean and standard deviation in quantitative data. Comparisons between quantitative variables were done using unpaired t-test or the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. A comparison between paired measurements in the same person was done using paired t-test (Chan, 2003). P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean age was 60.1 ± 7.2 years. The mean value of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was recorded for the 381 patients at presentation. In Group A, the mean value of IPSS was 20.44 ± 3.18, whereas in Group B, the mean value of IPSS was 21.23 ± 3.5. There was a significant improvement in symptoms (Qmax-IPSS) in both groups, but we found that this improvement was significantly better in Group A (P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: PV is an important prognostic factor affecting the improvement of the LUTS by α1-blocker monotherapy. Tamsulosin monotherapy may not be enough for large prostate (>40 mg) to maintain adequate symptom relief, and it is better to start with other medical options such as combined therapy or early nonmedical therapy. Starting α1-blocker monotherapy in smaller prostates may be of benefit in symptomatic patients without considering watchful waiting.

Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy versus slow power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy in stones with high attenuation value: A randomized comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ultraslow full-power versus slow rate, power-ramping shock wave lithotripsy in the management of stones with a high attenuation value. METHODS: This was a randomized comparative study enrolling patients with single high attenuation value (≥1000 Hounsfield unit) stones (≤3 cm) between September 2015 and May 2018. Patients with skin-to-stone distance >11 cm or body mass index >30 kg/m2 were excluded. Electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy was carried out at rate of 30 shock waves/min for group A versus 60 shock waves/min for group B. In group A, power ramping was from 6 to 18 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min, followed by ramping 18-22 kV for 100 shock waves, then a safety pause for 2 min. This full power (22 kV) was maintained until the end of the session. In group B, power ramping was carried out with an increase of 4 kV each 500 shock waves, then maintained on 22 kV in the last 1000-1500 shock waves. Follow up was carried out up to 3 months after the last session. Perioperative data were compared, including the stone free rate (as a primary outcome) and complications (secondary outcome). Predicting factors for success were analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients in group A and 96 patients in group B were included. The stone-free rate was significantly higher in group A (76% vs 38.5%; P < 0.001). Both groups were comparable in complication rates (20% vs 19.8%; P = 0.971). The stone-free rate remained significantly higher in group A in logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 24.011, 95% confidence interval 8.29-69.54; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ultraslow full-power shock wave lithotripsy for high attenuation value stones is associated with an improved stone-free rate without affecting safety. Further validation studies are required using other shock wave lithotripsy machines.

Outcome of early experience of Miniperc technique in pediatric age group.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report our experience with the Miniperc technique for treatment of renal stone in pediatric age group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 2012 to January 2015, 34 patients aged <15 years with renal stones <3 cm underwent Miniperc technique were included in our study. The procedure was done through 14 Fr sheath using 8/9.8 Fr semi-rigid ureteroscope, holmium laser, and pneumatic lithotriptor for stone fragmentation. Stone-free rate (SFR), operative time, hospital stay, and complication rate were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 34 Miniperc techniques were performed on children with a mean age of 8.8 ± 3.7 years. Stone size varied from 18 to 30 mm (mean 23 mm). Mean operative time was 50 min. The mean hospital stay was 48±12 hours. The overall SFR was 82.4% which increased after secondary procedures to 94%. Two postoperative complications recorded in the form of sepsis and bleeding that required no blood transfusion. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience concluded that Miniperc technique is a safe and effective treatment option for renal stones in pediatric population.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare solifenacin versus trospium chloride in the relief of double-J stent-related symptoms.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of solifenacin versus trospium chloride and compare each drug versus placebo regarding the relief of stent-related symptoms following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL). METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 210 eligible patients who underwent URSL with double-J stent insertion were recruited and randomly assigned to either the first group, receiving solifenacin (10 mg), second group, receiving trospium chloride (60 mg), or the third group, receiving placebo (one tablet). All patients were kept on study medication once daily during the entire 2-week postoperative period. All subjects were asked to complete a brief-form questionnaire to assess the lower urinary symptoms, stent-related body pain and hematuria, preoperatively and 2 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences among the study groups in terms of mean age, gender, anthropometric measurements, stone and stent criteria. The overall symptom score, urgency, urge incontinence, flank pain, urethral pain and gross hematuria scores were significantly lower in solifenacin group compared to trospium chloride and placebo groups (p < 0.001). Concerning frequency and nocturia, there was no significant difference in mean scores across all groups. Drug-related side effects, particularly constipation, were higher in trospium group than in solifenacin one. CONCLUSIONS: Solifenacin treatment showed significant improvement in almost all domains of stent-related symptoms than trospium. In terms of safety and tolerance, both drugs were comparable. Future studies should be designed to address the impact of combined drugs and lower doses in the management of DJ stent-related symptoms.