Sarica, K. | Yencilek, F.

Review | 2008 | Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia80 ( 1 ) , pp.27 - 33

Experimental as well as clinical findings reported in the literature suggest that treatment with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) causes renal parenchymal damage mainly by generating free radicals through ischaemia /reperfusion injury mechanism. Although SWL-induced renal damage is well tolerated in the majority of healthy cases with no permanent functional and/or morphologic side effects, a subset of patients with certain risk factors requires close attention on this aspect among which the ones with pre-existing renal disorders, urinary tract infection, previous lithotripsy history and solitary kidneys could be mentioned. It is clear t . . .hat in such patients lowering the number of shock waves (per session) could be beneficial and has been applied by the physicians as the first practical step of diminishing SWL induced parenchymal damage. On the other hand, taking the injurious effects of high energy shock wave (HESW) induced free radical formation on renal parenchyma and subsequent histopathologic alterations into account, physicians searched for some protective agents in an attempt to prevent or at least to limit the extent of the functional as well as the morphologic alterations. Among these agents calcium channel blocking agents (verapamil and nifedipine), antioxidant agents (allopurinol, vitamin E and selenium) and potassium citrate have been used to minimize these unestimated adverse effects. Additionally, therapeutic application of these agents on reducing stone recurrence particularly after SWL will gain more importance in the future in order to limit new stone formation in these cases. Lastly, as experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated, combination of anti-oxidants with free radical scavengers may provide superior renal protection against shock wave induced trauma. However, we believe that further investigations are certainly needed to determine the dose-response relationship between the damaging effects of SWL application and the protective role of these agents Daha fazlası Daha az

Yencilek, F. | Aktas, C. | Goktas, C. | Yilmaz, C. | Yilmaz, U. | Sarica, K.

Article | 2008 | Urology72 ( 5 ) , pp.987 - 990

Objectives: To evaluate the therapeutic effect of papaverine hydrochloride in the treatment of patients with renal colic pain unresponsive to conventional treatment. Methods: From March 2007 to January 2008, a total of 561 patients with severe renal colic pain due to a ureteral stone were treated with conventional agents (hyoscine-N-butylbromide and diclofenac sodium) in the emergency and urology departments. Of these 561 patients, 110, with no response to the treatment and persistent severe pain, were randomized into 3 groups for additional treatment. The patients in group 1 (n = 37) received intravenous hyoscine-N-butylbromide, th . . .ose in group 2 (n = 37) received papaverine hydrochloride, and those in group 3 (n = 36) received pethidine. Before and after treatment, all patients completed a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire, with a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximal complaint), to measure their subjective pain. The mean VAS score of each group was compared with that of the other groups. Results: The pretreatment mean VAS scores of all 3 groups were not significantly different statistically from each other (4.02 ± 1.20, 4.36 ± 1.97, and 4.27 ± 1.50; P > .05). However, after treatment, the mean VAS scores of the patients treated with papaverine (0.93 ± 0.29) and pethidine (0.81 ± 0.38) were significantly different from those of the hycosine group (3.67 ± 2.21; P < .001). However, the mean VAS scores of groups 2 and 3 were comparable (P = .67). Unlike opioids, no papaverine-related severe side effects were observed. Conclusions: Our results indicate that papaverine hydrochloride can used in an effective manner in the management of renal colic pain in patients unresponsive to commonly used conventional agents. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved Daha fazlası Daha az