Background: Medical expulsive therapy demonstrates efficacy in managing ureteral stones in patients amenable to conservative interventions. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mirabegron in the treatment of ureteral stones. Methods: From conception to November 2023, we examined PubMed databases, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Scopus, and trial registries for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We chose relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of mirabegron as an expulsive treatment for ureteral stones. The Cochrane risk of bias method was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Outcome measures, which included the stone expulsion rate (SER), expulsion time, and pain episodes, were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17. Results: Seven RCTs (N = 701) had enough information and were ultimately included. In patients with ureteral stones, mirabegron-treated patients had a substantially higher SER [odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-4.68, p = 0.002] than placebo-treated patients. Subgroup analysis revealed that mirabegron was superior to placebo in patients with small ureteral stones (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.05-4.87, p = 0.04), with no heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.54; I2 = 0%). Mirabegron patients had a higher SER than the control group for distal ureteral stones (DUSs) (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.31-4.68, p = 0.005). However, there was no difference in stone ejection time or pain episodes between groups. Conclusion: Mirabegron considerably improves SER in patients with ureteral stones, and the effect appears to be more pronounced for small and DUSs. Nevertheless, mirabegron treatment was not associated with improved stone expulsion time or pain management.

Thirty-three years ago, pulsed lasers marked the beginning of a new era in endoscopic lithotripsy, and the one that was highlighted because of its potential was the Holmium: YAG laser, which became and still is the gold standard in endourology. Recently, a new laser technology has been accepted for clinical use in lithotripsy: the thulium fiber laser (TFL), showing appealing characteristics not seen before in several preclinical studies. A review of the literature was performed and all relevant in vitro studies and clinical trials until April 2021 were selected. The search came back with 27 clinical experiences (7 full-text clinical trials and 20 peer-reviewed abstracts) and 33 laboratory studies (18 full-text articles and 15 peer-reviewed abstracts). The clinical experiences confirmed the clinical safety of using the wide parameter range of the TFL. This technology demonstrated the performance at a higher ablation speed, the higher ablation efficiency, and the better dust quality of the TFL, as well as reduced stone retropulsion, thus helping to maintain an optimal visibility. No thermal or radiation damage was found. Given the current evidence, we may be facing the future gold standard laser in endoscopic lithotripsy.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the evaluation of 22 drug interventions in the management of ureteral stones, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane central databases were searched to identify RCTs focusing on the evaluation of the efficacy of multiple drug interventions in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones, with no restrictions on year or language. Study quality assessment and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers. Major outcome measures were the stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and pain episodes during treatment. A total of 78 RCTs with 14,922 participants were included in the present study. The final comparative results show that naftopidil plus corticosteroids was associated with higher stone expulsion rates than other drug interventions. Silodosin plus tadalafil had the highest probability of reducing stone expulsion time. Tamsulosin plus tadalafil performed better than all the other drug interventions in reducing pain episodes during treatment. However, in terms of all the outcome measures, the ranking plot results demonstrate that silodosin plus tadalafil, in addition to tamsulosin plus tadalafil and corticosteroids, was the best drug intervention as medical expulsive therapy in the management of ureteral stones. In ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm, all active drug interventions were more efficacious than the control; however, not all active drug interventions had an efficacy superior to the placebo. Silodosin plus tadalafil, tamsulosin plus tadalafil and corticosteroids, tamsulosin plus tadalafil, and naftopidil plus corticosteroids were the most effective drug interventions. Considering the choice of treatment, these results should serve as evidence-based practice and be considered by physicians, patients, and guideline developers. However, with respect to the limitations of the present study, further high-quality studies are needed for more in-depth evaluation of both the efficacy and safety of these drug interventions.

Introduction: Preoperative alpha-blockers have been proposed to improve intraoperative outcomes and patient stone-free status after ureteroscopy for ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched six databases, including Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating alpha-blocker use before planned ureteroscopy for the management of ureteral calculi. Meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird method with inverse variance weighting. Quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Results: Of 3338 records, 26 were screened as full text and 12 RCTs were included totaling 1352 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated a 61% risk reduction in need for intraoperative ureteral dilatation in patients administered preoperative alpha-blockers (relative risk [RR]: 0.39 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.31-0.48], p < 0.00001), as well as increased stone-free status for patients at 4 weeks postoperatively (RR: 1.17 [95% CI: 1.08-1.26], p < 0.0001), and at final follow-up (RR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.11-1.24], p < 0.00001; median final follow-up 4 weeks [range: 2-8 weeks]). Urologists were more likely to reach the stone with the ureteroscope in patients administered alpha-blockers (RR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.10-1.23], p < 0.00001). A statistically significant reduction in operative time (mean difference [MD]: -6.05 [95% CI: -10.17 to -1.93] minutes, p = 0.004) and length of hospital stay (weighted MD: -0.34 [95% CI: -0.55 to -0.13] days, p = 0.001) was also demonstrated. Main reported side effects of treatments were abnormal ejaculation, postural hypotension, and dizziness. Outcomes were robust to sensitivity analyses. Results were rated moderate quality evidence using the GRADE framework. Conclusions: Among patients scheduled for semirigid ureteroscopy of ureteral stones, use of preoperative alpha-blockers demonstrated a significant reduction in the need for ureteral orifice dilation and an increase in patient stone-free status at follow-up, and facilitates higher rate of ureteroscopic access to stones, although reducing operative time. An adequately powered trial is needed to definitively address the safety and efficacy of preoperative alpha-blockers for ureteroscopy of ureteral stones.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of silodosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.
RESULTS: Six RCTs, including 916 participants and comparing silodosin with controls, were used in the meta-analysis. Silodosin was superior to controls in terms of stone expulsion rate, the primary efficacy end point in all six RCTs (odds ratio [OR] for expulsion 2.16, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 2.86, p <0.00001). Silodosin was also more effective for secondary efficacy end points; the stone expulsion time (standardized mean difference [SMD] -3.66, 95 % CI -6.61 to -0.71; p =0.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD -0.89, 95 % CI -1.19 to -0.60; p < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared with those of controls. Other than the incidence of abnormal ejaculation, which was higher in the silodosin groups (OR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.56 to 5.16, p =0.0006), few adverse effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates silodosin is an effective and safe treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects.

This study aimed at comparing the success rates of silodosin to the most commonly used for medical expulsive therapy (MET) tamsulosin for the management of ureteral stones. A systematic review using the search string: \"silodosin AND (ston* OR calcu* OR expul*)\" was conducted on Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register. The Primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate. Secondary endpoint was the time to stone expulsion. Two authors independently screened the studies depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis and forest-plot figures were calculated with the software Review Manager (RevMan 5.3.5). Variations were evaluated with the χ 2 statistical method and heterogeneity with I 2 index. After screening of 39 publications obtained by the initial search, three randomized controlled trials were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. 407 patients were pooled. Favorable results were observed for silodosin in terms of stone expulsion rates with a risk ratio of 1.33 (95 % CI 1.17-1.50) (I 2 = 0 %). Similarly, faster stone expulsion times were observed with silodosin when compared with tamsulosin. Mean difference -2.49 (95 % CI -3.40 to 1.58) (I 2 = 89 %). This meta-analysis showed significantly higher stone expulsion rates and faster expulsion times in favor of silodosin when compared to tamsulosin.