Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jan;30(1):60-4.
doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.124209.

Medical expulsive therapy

Affiliations

Medical expulsive therapy

Kyle D Wood et al. Indian J Urol. 2014 Jan.

Abstract

The objective of this review article is to present the current literature on medical expulsive therapy (MET) and help guide practitioners in the appropriate use of MET for treatment of stone disease. Kidney stones can be treated with multiple modalities including medical therapy, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrostolithotomy, open/laparoscopic stone removal, and/or combinations of these modalities. The choice of intervention depends on patient factors, anatomical considerations, surgeon preference, and stone location and characteristics. MET is an excellent treatment modality in the appropriately selected patient. The AUA/EAU guidelines suggest MET as a reasonable treatment choice in select patients. A review of the data suggests the use of alpha antagonist and calcium channel blockers can improve stone expulsion rates. Most data suggests alpha antagonists as superior to calcium channel blockers. There are numerous available alpha antagonists, all of which have supporting data for their use in MET. Evidence suggests that MET can decrease colic events, narcotic use, and hospital visits. MET may also reduce medical costs and prevent unnecessary surgeries and the associated risks. Further, there is a role for alpha antagonists and calcium channel blockers in improving stone passage and decreasing pain in those subjects treated with other modalities (i.e. SWL and ureteroscopy). Despite this evidence, MET remains underutilized as a treatment modality.

Keywords: Kidney; stones; urolithiasis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Tiselius HG. Epidemiology and medical management of stone disease. BJU Int. 2003;91:758–67. - PubMed
    1. Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC. Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1964-1994. Kidney Int. 2003;63:1817–23. - PubMed
    1. Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62:160–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC. Diabetes mellitus and the risk of nephrolithiasis. Kidney Int. 2005;68:1230–5. - PubMed
    1. Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC. Obesity, weight gain, and the risk of kidney stones. JAMA. 2005;293:455–62. - PubMed