Tamsulosin and doxazosin as adjunctive therapy following shock-wave lithotripsy of renal calculi: randomized controlled trial

Effect of alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists on sexual function. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.

Efficacy of Adjuvant Tamsulosin for Improving the Stone-Free Rate after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Renal Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is an effective treatment for urolithiasis. Tamsulosin is capable of causing dilation and facilitating the migration of stones. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant treatment with tamsulosin for improving the stone-free rate after a single session of ESWL in the treatment of kidney stones.

METHODS

This is a randomized, nonplacebo-controlled study with a sample of 60 adults with a single radiopaque kidney stone of 5-20 mm in diameter. After the ESWL session, the patients were divided into two groups. The control group received standard treatment for analgesia consisting of oral diclofenac (75 mg/12 h) as needed. The tamsulosin group received standard treatment for analgesia plus oral tamsulosin (0.4 mg/day) for eight weeks. In both groups, stone-free status was determined using a CT scan eight weeks after ESWL. The protocol of this study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04819828.

RESULTS

Only 57 patients completed the study (28 tamsulosin and 29 control). Overall, the average stone diameter was 11.42 ± 4.52 mm. The stone-free rate was 50.88% (29 of 57) overall, 53.57% (15 of 28) for the tamsulosin group, and 48.27% (14 of 29) for the control group (p = 0.680). The estimated relative risk in favor of the tamsulosin group to achieve a stone-free status was 1.11 (95% CI 0.67-1.9). The estimated number needed to treat to achieve a single patient with renal stone-free status after eight weeks of ESWL adjuvant treatment with tamsulosin was 19.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that tamsulosin as adjuvant treatment after a single ESWL session is well tolerated and safe, but it does not increase the stone-free rate in patients with a single radiopaque renal stone of 5-20 mm in diameter. Our results may support the use of tamsulosin with ESWL in the case of patients with a single radiopaque renal stone of 11-20 mm in diameter based on an apparent higher stone-free rate and a low rate of complications.

Adjunctive medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose:

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive medical expulsive therapy (MET) with tamsulosin for the promotion of stone fragments clearance for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

Materials and Methods:

This meta-analysis was conducted by systematic search for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases in January 2020, which compared tamsulosin with either placebo or non-placebo control for repeated ESWL. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate (SFR), the second endpoints were stone clearance time and complications. The quality assessment of included studies was performed by using the Cochrane System and Jadad score.

Results:

7 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Tamsulosin provided higher SFR (for stones larger than 1cm, OR: 5.56, p=0.0003), except for patients with stones less than 1cm. For patients with renal stones (OR: 2.97, p=0.0005) or upper ureteral stones (OR: 3.10, p=0.004), tamsulosin can also provide a higher SFR. In addition, tamsulosin provided a shorter stone clearance time (WMD: −9.40, p=0.03) and lower pain intensity (WMD=-17.01, p <0.0001) and incidences of steinstrasse (OR: 0.37, p=0.0002).

Conclusion:

Adjunctive MET with tamsulosin is effective in patients with specific stone size or location that received repeated ESWL. However, no well-designed RCT that used computed tomography for the detection and assessment of residual stone fragments was found. More studies with high quality and the comparison between tamsulosin and secondary ESWL are needed in the future.

Alpha-blockers after shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones in adults

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely used method to treat renal and ureteral stone. It fragments stones into smaller pieces that are then able to pass spontaneously down the ureter and into the bladder. Alpha-blockers may assist in promoting the passage of stone fragments, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alpha-blockers as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care compared to placebo and usual care or usual care alone in adults undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, several clinical trial registries and grey literature for published and unpublished studies irrespective of language. The date of the most recent search was 27 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing SWL. Participants in the intervention group had to have received an alpha-blocker as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care. For the comparator group, we considered studies in which participants received placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion, and performed data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analysis for the identified dichotomous and continuous outcomes using RevManWeb according to Cochrane methods using a random-effects model. We judged the certainty of evidence on a per outcome basis using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 studies with 4793 participants randomized to usual care and an alpha-blocker versus usual care alone. Only four studies were placebo controlled. The mean age of participants was 28.6 to 56.8 years and the mean stone size prior to SWL was 7.1 mm to 13.2 mm. The most widely used alpha-blocker was tamsulosin; others were silodosin, doxazosin, terazosin and alfuzosin.  Alpha-blockers may improve clearance of stone fragments after SWL (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.23; I² = 78%; studies = 36; participants = 4084; low certainty evidence). Based on the stone clearance rate of 69.3% observed in the control arm, an alpha-blocker may increase stone clearance to 80.4%. This corresponds to 111 more (62 more to 159 more) participants per 1000 clearing their stone fragments. Alpha-blockers may reduce the need for auxiliary treatments after SWL (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 16%; studies = 12; participants = 1251; low certainty evidence), but also includes the possibility of no effect. Based on a rate of auxiliary treatments in the usual care arm of 9.7%, alpha-blockers may reduce the rate to 6.5%. This corresponds 32 fewer (53 fewer to 0 fewer) participants per 1000 undergoing auxiliary treatments. Alpha-blockers may reduce major adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; I² = 0%; studies = 7; participants = 747; low certainty evidence). Major adverse events occurred in 25.8% of participants in the usual care group; alpha-blockers would reduce this to 15.5%. This corresponds to 103 fewer (139 fewer to 52 fewer) major adverse events per 1000 with alpha-blocker treatment. None of the reported major adverse events appeared drug-related; most were emergency room visits or rehospitalizations. Alpha-blockers may reduce stone clearance time in days (mean difference (MD) -3.74, 95% CI -5.25 to -2.23; I² = 86%; studies = 14; participants = 1790; low certainty evidence). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. For those outcomes for which we were able to perform subgroup analyses, we found no evidence of interaction with stone location, stone size or type of alpha-blocker. We were unable to conduct an analysis by lithotripter type. The results were also largely unchanged when the analyses were limited to placebo controlled studies and those in which participants explicitly only received a single SWL session.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low certainty evidence, adjuvant alpha-blocker therapy following SWL in addition to usual care may result in improved stone clearance, less need for auxiliary treatments, fewer major adverse events and a reduced stone clearance time compared to usual care alone. We did not find evidence for quality of life. The low certainty of evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

Is tamsulosin effective for the passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some trials have stated that there is no benefit to tamsulosin administration for clearing ureteral stones, which is contrary to previous studies. To confirm the efficacy of tamsulosin for treating symptomatic ureteral stones, we performed this review.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all studied variables, including tamsulosin, urinary stones, expulsion, and side effects. In addition, for all patients and different stone sizes, the treatment efficacy, expulsion rate, and expulsion time were also recorded for this treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies involving 6436 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data synthesized from these studies indicated that tamsulosin improved the renal stone clearance rate (80.5% vs 70.5%; mean difference (MD), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.19; P <.00001) and reduced the expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -3.77 to -3.46; P ≤.00001). Regarding complications, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of the total side effects (MD, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; P = .10) or divided complications, including retrograde ejaculation (P = .01), hypotension (P = .52), dizziness (P = .07), diarrhea (P = .58), vomiting (P = .88), headache (P = .84), nausea (P = .91), and fatigue (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin should be strongly recommended for patients with ureteral stones to increase treatment efficacy. The side effects were not significantly different between the tamsulosin and control treatments.

How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?

It is well recognized that the popularity of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), despite its non-invasive character, has decreased during recent years. This is partly explained by the technological achievements in endoscopy and urologists’ enthusiasm for such procedures. Another explanation is that many urologists have been insufficiently successful with SWL. The latter effect might to some extent be a result of the performance of the lithotripter used, but in too many cases, it is evident that the principles of how shock wave lithotripsy should be carried out are poorly applied. The purpose of this article is to emphasize some important aspects on how SWL best should be used. Based on decades of experience, it stands to reason that success with SWL does not come automatically and attention has to be paid to all details of this technique.

A network meta-analysis on the beneficial effect of medical expulsive therapy after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We applied a newly introduced method, network meta-analysis, to re-evaluate the expulsion effect of drugs including tamsulosin, doxazosin, nifedipine, terazosin and rowatinex after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) as described in the literature. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library for articles published before March 2016. Twenty-six studies with 2775 patients were included. The primary outcome was the number of patients with successful stone expulsion. The data were subdivided into three groups according to duration of follow-up. A standard network model was established in each subgroup. In 15-day follow-up results, SUCRA outcome showed the ranking of effects was: doxazosin > tamsulosin > rowatinex > nifedipine > terazosin (88.6, 77.4, 58.6, 32.2 and 30.4, respectively). In 45-day follow-up results, SUCRA ranking was: tamsulosin > nifedipine > rowatinex (69.4, 67.2 and 62.6, respectively). In 90-day follow-up results, SUCRA ranking was: doxazosin > rowatinex > tamsulosin (84.1, 68.1 and 49.1, respectively). In conclusion, doxazosin and tamsulosin have potential to be the first choice for pharmacological therapy to promote the expulsion of urinary stone fragments after ESWL, with this doxazosin can improve the SFR in the long term, while tamsulosin may result more in accelerating the process of expulsion.

Role of Tamsulosin Therapy after Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones: Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive tamsulosin therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for renal stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study was conducted on patients who underwent single-session SWL for solitary renal stone less than 20 mm. Post-SWL, patients were randomly divided into 2 groups; the tamsulosin group (TG), received a daily dose of tamsulosin 0.4 mg, for a maximum of 12 weeks, with post-SWL traditional analgesia and control group (CG), received the traditional analgesia alone.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 271 patients and eventually only 249 (123 in TG and 126 in CG) completed the study. The overall stone free rate was 73.5%: 78.0% in TG and 69.0% in CG (p = 0.108). In TG, 8.1% of patients experienced at least one episode of acute renal/ureteral colic compared with 19.8% of controls (p = 0.008). The mean cumulative analgesia dosage per subject was 313 mg in TG and 346 mg in CG (p < 0.001). Overall, 14 patients developed steinstrasse and 6 of them (all in CG) needed urgent intervention (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily tamsulosin therapy does not enhance the clearance of stone fragments but decreases the pain episodes, analgesia dosage and need for adjuvant intervention after SWL for renal stones.

Is Tamsulosin Effective after Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pediatric Renal Stones? A Randomized, Controlled Study

PURPOSE

We assessed the effect of tamsulosin as an adjunctive therapy after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric single renal pelvic stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 120 children with a unilateral single renal pelvic stone were included in a prospective randomized, controlled study. All children were randomized to 2 equal groups. Group 1 received tamsulosin (0.01 mg/kg once daily) as adjunctive therapy after shock wave lithotripsy in addition to paracetamol while group 2 received paracetamol only. Stone clearance was defined as no renal stone fragments or fragments less than 3 mm and no pelvicalyceal system dilatation.

RESULTS

Our study included 69 boys and 51 girls with a median age of 3.5 years and a median stone size of 1.2 cm. There was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in stone or patient criteria. Of the children 99 (82.5%) achieved stone clearance after the first session, including 50 in group 1 and 49 in group 2. All children in each group were cleared of stones after the second session. The overall complication rate was 14.2%. There was no statistically significant difference between single session stone clearance rates (p = 0.81) and complications rates (p = 0.432) in either group. On multivariate analysis using logistic regression smaller stone size (p = 0.016) and radiopaque stones (p = 0.019) were the only predictors of stone clearance at a single shock wave lithotripsy session. Tamsulosin therapy did not affect stone clearance (p = 0.649).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin does not seem to improve renal stone clearance. Smaller and radiopaque renal stones have more chance of clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric single renal pelvic stones.

The Efficacy of Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET) in Improving Stone-free Rate and Stone Expulsion Time, After Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) for Upper Urinary Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

In this meta-analysis, we included randomized studies on medical expulsive therapy implemented following shock wave lithotripsy for renal and ureteral stones. Pooled results demonstrated the efficacy of α-blockers, nifedipine, Rowatinex, and Uriston in increasing stone clearance. In addition, the time to stone elimination, the intensity of pain, the formation of steinstrasse, and the need for auxiliary procedures were reduced mainly with α-blockers. Expulsion rate was not correlated with the type of α-blocker, the diameter, and the location of stone. Our results show that medical expulsive therapy for residual fragments after shock wave lithotripsy should be implemented in clinical practice.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin Combined with Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Many studies have been conducted to investigate adjunctive tamsulosin therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for urolithiasis. The results from those studies, however, are still inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to provide an update on the clinical efficacy and safety of tamsulosin combined with SWL for urolithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials until January 2015. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.1.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (2093 subjects in total) were identified in the current meta-analysis. Compared with a control group, the experimental group (tamsulosin combined with SWL) showed an increased overall benefit for stone expulsion, with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.26). With respect to the different geographic regions, European and American had a high possibility of improvement in stone expulsion (RR: 1.33, 95% CI, 1.19-1.49). According to the stone locations (renal, upper and lower ureteral) and sizes (4-10 mm and 11-24 mm), tamsulosin is more useful for lower ureteral stone (RR: 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43) and larger sized stones (RR: 1.49; 95% CI, 1.28-1.75). The effect estimates did not vary markedly when stratified by follow-up durations but varied by dose of tamsulosin. Furthermore, a shorter expulsion time, reduced occurrence of steinstrasse, fewer incidences of colic, and lower analgesic requirements were observed within the experimental group. In addition, tamsulosin is well tolerated, and its adverse events rarely led to dropouts of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence suggests that tamsulosin combined with SWL is safe and effective in enhancing stone expulsion for patients with urolithiasis. Furthermore, high-quality, randomized and placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin should be performed.

Adjunctive medical therapy with α-blocker after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although some trials assessed the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the role of the α-blocker in facilitating upper urinary calculi expulsion after ESWL remain controversial.

AIMS

To determine the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after ESWL.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using a fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 23 RCTs, α-blocker significantly enhanced expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi after ESWL (P<0.00001; RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.31), significantly promoted steinstrasse expulsion (P=0.03; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), significantly shortened the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi (P=0.0001; MD -2.12; 95% CI -3.20--1.04), significantly reduced the patient's pain VAS score (P=0.001; RR -1.0; 95% CI -1.61--0.39). Compared with the control group, dizziness (P=0.002; RR 5.48; 95% CI 1.91-15.77), anejaculation (P=0.02; RR 12.17; 95% CI 1.61-91.99) and headache (P=0.04; RR 4.03; 95% CI 1.04-15.72) in the α-blocker group was associated with a higher incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with α-blocker after ESWL appears to be effective in enhancing expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi, shortening the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi, reducing the patient's pain. The side effects of α-blocker were light and few.

Effect of Flos carthami Extract and α 1-Adrenergic Antagonists on the Porcine Proximal Ureteral Peristalsis

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been proposed to prevent urolithiasis. In China, Flos carthami (FC, also known as Carthamus tinctorius) (Safflower; Chinese name: Hong Hua/紅花) has been used to treat urological diseases for centuries. We previously performed a screening and confirmed the in vivo antilithic effect of FC extract. Here, ex vivo organ bath experiment was further performed to study the effect of FC extract on the inhibition of phenylepinephrine (PE) (10⁻⁴ and 10⁻³ M) ureteral peristalsis of porcine ureters with several α₁-adrenergic antagonists (doxazosin, tamsulosin, and terazosin) as experimental controls. The results showed that doxazosin, tamsulosin, and terazosin dose (approximately 4.5 × 10⁻⁶ − 4.5 × 10⁻¹  μg/mL) dependently inhibited both 10⁻⁴ and 10⁻³ M PE-induced ureteral peristalsis. FC extract achieved 6.2% ± 10.1%, 21.8% ± 6.8%, and 24.0% ± 5.6% inhibitions of 10⁻⁴ M PE-induced peristalsis at doses of 5 × 10³, 1 × 10⁴, and 2 × 10⁴  μg/mL, respectively, since FC extract was unable to completely inhibit PE-induced ureteral peristalsis, suggesting the antilithic effect of FC extract is related to mechanisms other than modulation of ureteral peristalsis.

Calculating the number of shock waves, expulsion time, and optimum stone parameters based on noncontrast computerized tomography characteristics

OBJECTIVE

To define the parameters that accompanied a successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), namely the number of shock waves (SWs), expulsion time (ET), mean stone density (MSD), and the skin-to-stone distance (SSD).

METHODS

A total of 368 patients diagnosed with renal calculi using noncontrast computerized tomography had their MSD, diameter, and SSD recorded. All patients were treated using a Siemens lithotripter. ESWL success meant a stone-free status or presence of residual fragments <3 mm, ET was the time in days for the successful clearance of stone fragments. Correlation was performed between the stone characteristics, number of SWs, and ET. Two multiple regression analysis models defined the number of SWs and ET. Two receiver operating characteristic curves plotted the best MSD cutoff value and optimum SSD for a successful ESWL.

RESULTS

Three hundred one patients were ESWL successes. A significant positive correlation was elicited between number of SWs and stone diameter, density and SSD; between ET and stone diameter and density. Multiple regressions concluded 2 equations: Number of SWs = 265.108 + 5.103 x1 + 22.39 x2 + 10.931 x3 ET (days) = -10.85 + 0.031 x1 + 2.11 x2 x1 = stone density (Hounsfield unit [HUs]), x2 = stone diameter (mm), and x3 = SSD (mm). Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated a cutoff value of ≤ 934 HUs with 94.4% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity and P = .0211. The SSD curve showed that a distance ≤ 99 mm was 85.7% sensitive, 87.5% specific, P <.0001.

CONCLUSION

Stone disintegration is not recommended if MSD is >934 HUs and SSD >99 mm. The required number of SWs and the expected ET can be anticipated.

The presence and distribution of alpha adrenergic receptors in human renal pelvis and calyces

In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the presence of Alpha (α) 1 receptors and subtypes in human pelvis and calyces, because an agent to facilitate kidney stone movement and help decrease pain may be an α 1 adrenergic blocker, as used in ureteral stones. Twenty patients who applied to our clinic for renal cell carcinoma were enrolled to the study. All patients underwent radical nephrectomy. After the specimens were removed, excisional biopsies were performed on healthy pelvises and calyces. Mean α-receptor stain rates in renal pelvis were 2.65 ± 0.74, 1.35 ± 0.81 and 2.9 ± 0.30 for α 1A, 1B and 1D, respectively. For calyces, the rates are 2.40 ± 0.82, 1.50 ± 0.76 and 2.75 ± 0.44 for α 1A, 1B and 1D, respectively (Fig. 1). When the staining patterns were compared, α 1A and 1D were expressed more in both pelvis and calyces than α 1B (p < 0.05). After the demonstration of α-adrenergic receptors in pelvis and calyces of human kidney, it may be helpful in coming up with new alternative treatments for patients suffering from kidney stones.