Efficiency of the biologically active additive Oxaforin in the combined treatment of urolithiasis

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. Treatment of urolithiasis remains an urgent problem related to medical, social and work rehabilitation.

Aim. To evaluate the efficiency of the biologically active additive «Oxaphorin» in the treatment of urolithiasis after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

Material and methods. The study included 60 male and female patients from 18 to 75 years old (average age of 45.56±12.49 years) with renal stones of up to 10 mm in size, which were disintegrated by the ESWL. All patients were randomized into 3 groups (20 people each). In the first group, patients received standard treatment in the postoperative period (antispasmodics, NSAIDs, uroseptics). In the second group, along with standard therapy, Oxaphorin (1 capsule 2 times a day) was administered, while in the third group Oxaphorin as monotherapy (1 capsule 2 times a day) was given. Treatment and follow-up were carried out in accordance with the study protocol for 30 days. The efficiency of treatment was assessed by the stone-free rate and time to complete evacuation of fragments. Study design included history taking, physical examination, assessment of the tolerability of therapy and adverse events, complete blood count, urinalysis, biochemical panel, ultrasound of the genitourinary system and kidney X-ray.

Results. As the study showed, the rate of stone expulsion was higher in groups of patients receiving Oxaforin. Stone-free rate after 10 days was confirmed using imaging studies and laboratory analyses in 8 (40%) patients of the first group, in 11 (55%) in the second group and in 6 (30%) in the third group. After 1 month of follow-up, stone-free status was confirmed in 16 (80%), 18 (90%) and 15 (75%) patients, respectively. In those taking Oxaforin as part of combined therapy, stone-free rate after ESWL was higher (90% vs. 75% in third group, where Oxaforin was used as monotherapy). The frequency of renal colic and its severity based on a visual analogue scale was significantly lower and less pronounced in patients receiving Oxaforin.

Conclusions. Our results showed that the biologically active additive «Oxaphorin» has a pronounced effect as medical expulsive therapy without any adverse events and is effective in patients with urinary stone disease after ESWL for kidney stones.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Alexey Y. Zubkov

FGBOU VO Kazan State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: dr.alexz@icloud.com

Honored Doctor of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tatarstan, Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of Urology named after Academician E.N. Sitdykov

Russian Federation, Kazan

Marina E. Sitdykova

FGBOU VO Kazan State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: marina-sitdykova@mail.ru

Honored Doctor of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tatarstan, Honored Scientist of the Republic of Tatarstan, Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Department of Urology named after Academician E.N. Sitdykov

Russian Federation, Kazan

Eduard A. Zubkov

FGBOU VO Kazan State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: doctor.zubkov@mail.ru

Ph.D., assistant at the Department of Urology named after Academician E.N. Sitdykov

Russian Federation, Kazan

References

  1. Trinchieri A., Curchan G., KarlsenS., JunWuK. Epidemiology. Stone Disease. Paris: Health Publications, 2003;13-30.
  2. Apolikhin O.I., Sivkov A.V., Komarova V.A., Prosyannikov M.Yu., Golovanov S.A., Kazachenko A.V. The incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation (2005–2016). Experimental and clinical urology. 2018;4:4–14. Russian (Аполихин О.И., Сивков А.В., Комарова В.А., Просянников М.Ю., Голованов С.А., Казаченко А.В. Заболеваемость мочекаменной болезнью в Российской Федерации (2005–2016 гг.) Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2018;4:4–14).
  3. Borisov V.V., Enaleeva S.K., Shedaniya A.V., Olenich A.V. Lithotripsy and structural changes in nephrolithiasis. Materials of the Plenum of the Board of the Russian Society of Urologists. Moscow, 2003, p. 78. Russian (Борисов В.В., Еналеева С.К., Шедания А.В., Оленич А.В. Литотрипсия и изменение структуры нефролитиаза. Материалы Пленума правления РОУ. М., 2003, с. 78).
  4. Lopatkin N.A., Dzeranov N.K. Fifteen years of experience in the use of DLT in the treatment of ICD. Materials of the Plenum of the Board of the Russian Society of Urologists. Moscow, 2003, p. 5. Russian (Лопаткин Н.А., Дзеранов Н.К. Пятнадцатилетний опыт применения ДЛТ в лечении МКБ. Материалы Пленума правления РОУ. М., 2003, с. 5).
  5. Zhang W., Zhou T., Wu T., Gao X., Peng Y., et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: A meta-analysis and systematic review. J. Endourol. 2015;29(7):745–759.
  6. Martov A.G., Ergakov D.V. Rehabilitation of patients after performing modern endourological operations for urolithiasis. Urologiia. 2018;4:49–55. Russian (Мартов А.Г., Ергаков Д.В. Реабилитация пациентов после выполнения современных эндоурологических операций по поводу мочекаменной болезни. Урология. 2018;4:49–55).
  7. Moskalenko S.A. Remote shock wave lithotripsy today. Proceedings of the XVIII Congress on Endourology and New Technologies. Moscow: 2022. pp.136–137. Russian (Москаленко С.А. Дистанционная ударно-волновая литотрипсия сегодня. Материалы XVIII конгресса по эндоурологии и новым технологиям. Москва: 2022. с.136–137).
  8. DrakeT. et al. What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock – wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:772.
  9. Candau C. et al. Natural history of residual renal stone fragments after ESWL. Eur Urol. 2000;37:18.
  10. Chew B.H. et al. Natural history, Complications and Re Intervention Rates of Asymptomatic Residual Stone Fragments after Ureteroscopy: А Report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol. 2016;195:983.
  11. Olvera-Posada D. et al. Natural history of Residual Fragments After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Evaluation of Factors Related to Clinical Events and Intervention. Urology. 2016;97:46.
  12. Chew B.H. et al. Natural history, Complications and Re Intervention Rates of Asymptomatic Residual Stone Fragments after Ureteroscopy: a Report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol. 2016;195:983.
  13. Drake N. et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones & A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2017;72:772.
  14. Mamеdov E.A., Dutov V.V., Bazaev V.V. Complications of contact ureterolithotripsy. Urologiia. 2017;4:113–119. Russian (Мамедов Э.А., Дутов В.В., Базаев В.В. Осложнения контактной уретеролитотрипсии. Урология. 2017;4:113–119).
  15. Kotov S.V., Nemenov A.A., Perov R.A., Sokolov N.M. A systematic approach to the assessment of ureteroscopic complications. Experimental and clinical urology. 2022;15(2):32–37. Russian (Котов С.В., Неменов А.А., Перов Р.А., Соколов Н.М. Систематизированный подход в оценке уретероскопических осложнений. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2022;15(2):32–37).
  16. Martov A.G., Kruglov V.A., Asfandiyarov F.R., Vybornov S.V., Olkhovskaya S.A., Kruglova E.Y. Phytotherapy of patients with residual concretions of the upper urinary tract after lithotripsy. Experimental and clinical urology. 2019;1:82–89. Russian (Мартов А.Г., Круглов В.А., Асфандияров Ф.Р., Выборнов С.В., Ольховская С.А., Круглова Е.Ю. Фитотерапия пациентов с резидуальными конкрементами верхних мочевых путей после литотрипсии. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2019;1:82–89).
  17. Schuler T.D. et al. Medical expulsive therapy as an adjunct to improve shockwave lithotripsy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2009;23:387.
  18. Skolarikos A. et al. 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. Asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis. Urology. 2015;86:1057.
  19. Каприн А.Д., Аполихин О.И, Сивков А.В. и др. Возможности применения фитотерапии для коррекции нарушений обмена литогенных веществ при мочекаменной болезни. М., 2021. с. 46.
  20. Nirumand M.Ch., Hajialyani M., Rahimi R. et al. Dietary plants for the prevention and management of kidney stones preclinical and clinical evidence and molecular mechanisms. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:765.
  21. Bai Y. et al. Tadalafil Facilitates the Distal Ureteral Stones Expulsion: A Meta-Analysis. J Endourology. 2017;31:57.
  22. Campschroer N., Zhu X., Vernooij R.W., Lock MT. WT. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. 2018;(4):CD008509.
  23. Turk C. et al. Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureterolithiasis. The EAU Recommendations in 2016. Eur Urology, 2016.
  24. Sairam K. Shouldwe SUSPENDMET? Notreally. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69(2):183.
  25. Rational pharmacotherapy in urology: A guide for practicing physicians / under the general editorship of N.A. Lopatkin, T.S. Perepanova. Moscow: Litterra, 2006. p. 391. Кгыышфт (Рациональная фармакотерапия в урологии: Руководство для практикующих врачей / под общ. ред. Н.А. Лопаткина, Т.С. Перепановой. М.: Литтерра, 2006. с. 391).
  26. Urology: a national guide / edited by N.A. Lopatkin. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2009. pp. 19–620. Russian (Урология: национальное руководство / под ред. Н.А. Лопаткина. – М.: ГЕОТАР-Медиа, 2009. С. 19–620).
  27. Urology. Russian clinical guidelines / edited by Yu.G. Alyaev, P.V. Glybochko, D.Y. Pushkar. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2016. pp. 85–91. Russian (Урология. Российские клинические рекомендации / под ред. Ю.Г. Аляева, П.В. Глыбочко, Д.Ю. Пушкаря. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2016. с. 85–91).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Distribution of patients according to VAS assessment in the dynamics of observation

Download (69KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Indicators (% stone free rate) of complete passage of stones by patient groups

Download (80KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2025 Bionika Media