Evidence Hub

A Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Solifenacin, Tamsulosin and Tadalafil in Relieving Double-J Stent Related Symptoms

A. R. Balaji, P. Patnaik, J. S. Prakash, S. Vetrichandar, K. Arasi, A. Paranjothi, V. Natarajan

Open Journal of Urology, 2020

146 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of Solifenacin, Tamsulosin, and Tadalafil in treating ureteral stent related symptoms (SRS) in patients with indwelling Double-J ureteral stents. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 146 consecutive patients in the department of urology, Government Stanley Medical College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India between Sept 2017-March 2019, with SRS after taking informed consent and confirming DJ Stent position by X-ray KUB post-operatively. Patients were randomized into 4 groups: Group A (Placebo), Group B (Solifenacin 5 mg), and Group B (Tamsulosin 0.4 mg) and group D (Tadalafil 5 mg) at end of 1st week till the removal of DJ stent at end of 3 weeks. All patients were assessed for bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) using the validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) at 1st week and 3 weeks after the starting of medications. Appropriate statistical analysis as carried out and the level of significance was set at P α-blockers in relieving urinary symptoms and is more efficacious in relieving sexual symptoms and body pain.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 146 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free