Loading…
Comparison of safety and efficacy of silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil and their combinations in the treatment of double-J stent- related lower urinary system symptoms: A prospective randomized trial
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil and their combinations in reducing double J (DJ) stent-related symptoms (SRS). Material and methods: A total of 335 patients who underwent DJ stenting and develop SRS at 1st week were randomized into eight groups. Ur...
Saved in:
Published in: | Turkish journal of urology 2018-05, Vol.44 (3), p.228-238 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil and their combinations in reducing double J (DJ) stent-related symptoms (SRS). Material and methods: A total of 335 patients who underwent DJ stenting and develop SRS at 1st week were randomized into eight groups. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) and Quality of life (QOL) scores were noted in each group: Group A-Silodosin (8 mg OD)+ Solifenacin (10 mg OD)+ Tadalafil (5 mg OD), B - Silodosin 8 mg OD, C - Solifenacin 10 mg OD, D- Tadalafil 5 mg OD, E- Silodosin (8 mg OD) + Solifenacin (10 mg OD), F- Silodosin (8 mg 0D)+ Tadalafil (5 mg OD), G- Solifenacin (10 mg OD)+ Tadalafil (5 mg OD) and H-placebo. Analgesic (diclofenac 50 mg) was given as per requirement. All groups received the drugs for 14 days and again USSQ, QOL score with analgesic requirement were noted in each group. Results: USSQ score was similar in all groups at 1st week but all groups (Groups A-G) led to significant decrease in USSQ score at 3rd week as compared to Group H with less requirement of analgesic. However when we compared groups with each other we found that mean USSQ score and analgesic requirement was favoring Group E as compared to other groups. Quality of life score was also best in Group E (mean 1.5) (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2149-3235 2149-3057 2980-1478 |
DOI: | 10.5152/tud.2018.50328 |