The efficacy of @entity9940 vs. XXXX for the medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteric stones: A randomised clinical trial.

@entity1 @entity3522 @entity13364 @entity594 @entity9940 @entity617
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare, in a randomised clinical trial, the efficacy of @entity9940 and @entity594 as medical expulsive therapy for @entity13364 . @entity1 AND METHODS: In all, 128 symptomatic @entity1 with stones in the juxtavesical tract of the ureter were randomly divided into group 1 (64 @entity1 ) receiving oral @entity594 sustained-release 30  mg/day, and group 2 (64 @entity1 ) receiving @entity9940 0.4  mg/day. Both groups received oral @entity617 30  mg/day for 10  days and @entity3522 75  mg intramuscularly on demand. @entity1 were assessed by weekly ultrasonography with or with no abdominal computed tomography, during a follow-up of 4  weeks. The stone passage rate and time, analgesic use, hospitalisation and endoscopic interventions were evaluated. The results were analysed statistically using appropriate tests. RESULTS: The stone expulsion rate was 55% for group 1 and 80% for group 2 (P  =  0.004). The mean stone size was 8.59 and 8.85  mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean expulsion time was 23  days for group 1 and 9  days for group 2 (P  <  0.001). The mean number of @entity3522 injections was 1.19 for group 1 and 0.42 for group 2 (P  <  0.001). Eleven @entity1 in group 1 vs. two in group 2 were hospitalised (P  =  0.001). Twenty-six @entity1 in group 1 and 13 in group 2 underwent ureteroscopy (P  <  0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical expulsive therapy with @entity9940 should be considered as a first-line treatment for index cases of @entity13364 with no complications. The use of @entity9940 provides better stone expulsion than does @entity594 .
