The effects of silodosin in the treatment of ureteral stent related symptoms

  • Hyeon Woo Kim
  • Jong-Hyun Lee
  • Dong Gil Shin
  • Jeong Zoo Lee
Original Article


The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of silodosin in improving the lower urinary tract symptoms of patients with indwelling double-J ureteral stents. We reviewed the data of 89 male patients with ureteral stones who had undergone placement of a double-J ureteral stent after retrograde ureteroscopy at Pusan National University Hospital in South Korea from June 2011 to May 2013. The patients enrolled in the study were sorted into two groups. Forty-six patients who were given silodosin (8 mg) once daily were sorted as group A, and forty-three patients who received no α1-blocker were sorted as group B (control group). All patients completed international prostate symptoms score/quality of life component of IPSS (IPSS/QoL) and visual analogue pain scale (VAPS) questionnaires 6 weeks after the stent placement. The mean age of all the patients was 57.9 ± 12.8 years (range, 27–84 years). There was a significant difference in the IPSS—total score (p = 0.029), storage subscore (p = 0.035) and voiding subscore (p = 0.017)—and QoL scores (p = 0.041), but no significant differences in the VAPS (p = 0.210). The present study showed that silodosin improved stent-related urinary symptoms and QoL without causing any serious side effects. Further clinical research in this area is warranted to better define the role of silodosin in current clinical practice.


Silodosin Ureteral stent Symptom 



This work was supported by a clinical research grant from Pusan National University Hospital in 2014.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Knudsen, B.E., Beiko, D.T., Denstedt, J.D.: Stenting after ureteroscopy: pros and cons. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 31, 173–180 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chew, B.H., Knudsen, B.E., Denstedt, J.D.: The use of stents in contemporary urology. Curr. Opin. Urol. 14, 111–115 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zimskind, P.D., Fetter, T.R., Wilkerson, J.L.: Clinical use of long-term indwelling silicone rubber ureteral splints inserted cystoscopically. J. Urol. 97, 840–844 (1967)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joshi, H.B., Stainthorpe, A., MacDonagh, R.P., et al.: Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J. Urol. 169, 1065–1069 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richter, S., Ringel, A., Shalev, M., et al.: The indwelling ureteric stent: a ‘friendly’ procedure with unfriendly high morbidity. BJU Int. 85, 408–411 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joshi, H.B., Okeke, A., Newns, N., et al.: Prevalence of urinary symptoms in patients with ureteric stents and its assessment using I-PSS and ICS questionnaires. Eur. Urol. 37, 125 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tolley, D.: Ureteric stents, far from ideal. Lancet 356, 872–873 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dyer, R.B., Chen, M.Y., Zagoria, R.J., et al.: Complications of ureteral stent placement. Radiographics 22, 1005–1022 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Candela, J.V., Bellman, G.C.: Ureteral stents: impact of diameter and composition on patient symptoms. J. Endourol. 11, 45–47 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas, R.: Indwelling ureteral stents: impact of material and shape on patient comfort. J. Endourol. 7, 137–140 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoshida, M., Kudoh, J., Homma, Y., et al.: New clinical evidence of silodosin, an α(1A) selective adrenoceptor antagonist, in the treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms. Int. J. Urol. 19, 306–316 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michel, M.C.: The pharmacological profile of the α1A-adrenoceptor antagonist silodosin. Eur. Urol. 4, 486–490 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roehrborn, C.G., Schwinn, D.A.: α1-Adrenergic receptors and their inhibitors in lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. J. Urol. 171, 1029–1035 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beddingfield, R., Pedro, R.N., Hinck, B., et al.: Alfuzosin to relieve ureteral stent discomfort: a prospective, randomized, placebo controlled study. J. Urol. 181, 170–176 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deliveliotis, C., Chrisofos, M., Gougousis, E., et al.: Is there a role for alpha1-blockers in treating double-J stent-related symptoms? Urology 67, 35–39 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dellis, A.E., Keeley Jr, F.X., Manolas, V., et al.: Role of α-blockers in the treatment of stent-related symptoms: a prospective randomized control study. Urology 83, 56–61 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shalaby, E., Ahmed, A.F., Maarouf, A., et al.: Randomized controlled trial to compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin, solifenacin, and combination of both in treatment of double-j stent-related lower urinary symptoms. Adv. Urol. (2013). doi: 10.1155/2013/752382 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duvdevani, M., Chew, B.H., Denstedt, J.D.: Minimizing symptoms in patients with ureteric stents. Curr. Opin. Urol. 16, 77–82 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Damiano, R., Autorino, R., de Sio, M., et al.: Effect of tamsulosin in preventing ureteral stent-related morbidity: a prospective study. J. Endourol. 22, 651–655 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mokhtari, G., Shakiba, M., Ghodsi, S., et al.: Effect of terazosin on lower urinary tract symptoms and pain due to double-J stent: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Urol. Int. 87, 19–22 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ritter, M., Krombach, P., Knoll, T., et al.: Initial experience with a newly developed antirefluxive ureter stent. Urol. Res. 40, 349–353 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lumiaho, J., Heino, A., Aaltomaa, S., et al.: A short biodegradable helical spiral ureteric stent provides better antireflux and drainage properties than a double-J stent. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 45, 129–133 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lingeman, J.E., Preminger, G.M., Goldfischer, E.R., et al.: Assessing the impact of ureteral stent design on patient comfort. J. Urol. 181, 2581–2587 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dunn, M.D., Portis, A.J., Kahn, S.A., et al.: Clinical effectiveness of new stent design: randomized single-blind comparison of tail and double-pigtail stents. J. Endourol. 14, 195–202 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clifford, G.M., Farmer, R.D.: Medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 38, 2–19 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joshi, H.B., Newns, N., Stainthorpe, A., et al.: Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire: development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J. Urol. 169, 1060–1064 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shibata, K., Foglar, R., Horie, K., et al.: KMD-3213, a novel, potent, alpha 1a-adrenoceptor-selective antagonist: characterization using recombinant human alpha 1-adrenoceptors and native tissues. Mol. Pharmacol. 48, 250–258 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyeon Woo Kim
    • 1
  • Jong-Hyun Lee
    • 1
  • Dong Gil Shin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jeong Zoo Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical System EngineeringGwangju Institute of Science and TechnologyGwangjuSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Urology, School of MedicinePusan National University HospitalBusanSouth Korea
  3. 3.Medical Research InstitutePusan National University HospitalBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations