You are in:Home/Publications/Optimum combined MET according to tolerability with efcacy, Silodosin Tadalafl versus Silodosin Vardenafl for distal ureteric stone: a prospective, double blinded, randomized clinical trial

Dr. tamer abd elwahab abd elmonem mohamed diab :: Publications:

Title:
Optimum combined MET according to tolerability with efcacy, Silodosin Tadalafl versus Silodosin Vardenafl for distal ureteric stone: a prospective, double blinded, randomized clinical trial
Authors: Tamer Diab1 · Kareem Noah1 · Mahmoud Farag1 · Hussein Shaher
Year: 2024
Keywords: Not Available
Journal: Not Available
Volume: Not Available
Issue: Not Available
Pages: Not Available
Publisher: Not Available
Local/International: Local
Paper Link: Not Available
Full paper tamer abd elwahab abd elmonem mohamed diab_5-Optimum combined MET according to tolerability with efficacy,-1.pdf
Supplementary materials Not Available
Abstract:

Objectives To determine the optimum combination therapy of Silodosin–Tadalafl versus Silodosin–Vardenafl in terms of both tolerability and efcacy for the management of distal ureteric stones. Methods This prospective, double blinded, randomized clinical trial included 140 patients with distal ureteric stones, randomized into two groups: Group I (n=67) received Silodosin 8 mg once daily combined with Tadalafl 5 mg once daily, and Group II (n=68) received Silodosin 8 mg once daily combined with Vardenafl 10 mg once daily. The primary outcome was the tolerability of the combination therapies, assessed through the incidence of adverse events. Secondary outcomes included stone expulsion rate, expulsion time, and the need for analgesics. Results Both combination therapies demonstrated similar efcacy, with no signifcant diferences in stone expulsion rate (70.1% vs. 67.6%, P=0.754), expulsion time (19±3 days for both groups, P=0.793), and analgesic requirements (P>0.05). However, the Silodosin–Tadalafl combination showed a signifcantly lower occurrence of adverse events, with notable differences in headache (23.9% vs. 57.4%, P

Google ScholarAcdemia.eduResearch GateLinkedinFacebookTwitterGoogle PlusYoutubeWordpressInstagramMendeleyZoteroEvernoteORCIDScopus