|
|
|
| Clinical Observation of Three Different Drugs for Treatment of Lower Ureteral Calculi |
| CAO Xue, LI Honglu, TONG Xiaoshu |
| Liaoning Health Industry Group Iron Coal General Hospital, Liaoning Tieling 112700, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To observe the clinical efficacy of three different drugs (tamsulosin, nifedipine and racemic anisodamine) in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Methods: 90 patients with lower ureteral calculi in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2018 were randomly divided into tamsulosin group, nifedipine group, racemic anisodamine group and control group, with 22 cases, 23 cases, 22 cases and 23 cases respectively. All four groups needed a large amount of water to ensure the daily total urine volume > 2000 ml, of which tamsulosin group. Group B, nifedipine group and racemic anisodamine group were given 0.4 mg po qd, 10 mg potid and 10 mg po tid, while blank control group was not given drug intervention for 2 weeks. To observe and compare the clinical efficacy, the size of stone removal, the time of stone removal, the size of residual stones and adverse reactions of each group. Results: The total effective rate was tamsulosin group > racemic anisodamine group > nifedipine group > control group (P<0.05); lithotripsy size was tamsulosin group > racemic anisodamine group > nifedipine group > control group (P<0.05); lithotripsy time was tamsulosin group < nifedipine group < racemic anisodamine group < control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between nifedipine group and racemic anisodamine group (P>0.05); residual stone size of tamsulosin group < nifedipine group < racemic anisodamine group < control group (P<0.05); no significant adverse reactions occurred in the four groups during the experiment. Conclusion: Tamsulosin has better clinical efficacy than nifedipine and racemic anisodamine in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi. Nifedipine and racemic anisodamine have similar therapeutic effects, and the three groups have better safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, et al. What ale the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones A Systematic Review[J].Eur Urol,2017,72(5):772.
[2] Sadi T, Ozan E, Lokman I, et al. Is semirigid ureteroscopysufficient in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones when is combinedtherapy with flexible ureteroscopyneeded[J]. Springerplus,2016,5(1):30.
[3] Lei M, Zhu W, Wan SP, et al. The outcome of urine culturepositive and culture negative staghorn calculi after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy[J]. Urolithiasis,2014, 42(3):235~240.
[4] 陈天波,刘涛,王正强,等.输尿管下段结石药物辅助排石三种方法的疗效对比[J].河北医学,2016,22(6):980~982.
[5] Jiang JT, Li WG, Zhu YP, et al. Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of obstructive upper ureteral calculi with concurrent urinary tract infections [J].Lasers Med Sci,2016,31(5):915~920.
[6] Shao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm[J].World Urol,2015,33(11):1841~1845.
[7] 王若凡,郝斌,黄垂国,等.三种体位体外冲击波碎石治疗输尿管远端结石疗效比较[J].郑州大学学报(医学版),2017,52(2):232~235.
[8] 王家菁,杨盛,陈永华,等.地奥司明联合α-受体阻滞剂治疗ⅢB型前列腺炎的疗效观察[J].蚌埠医学院学报,2018,43(9):1176~1178. |
|
|
|
2020, Vol. 26 
