• Stavros Ioannidis, Spyridon Kampantais, Anastasios Ioannidis, Konstantinos Gkagkalidis, Ioannis Vakalopoulos, Chrysovalantis Toutziaris, Christos Patsialas, Leonidas Laskaridis, Panagiotis Dimopoulos, and Georgios Dimitriadis.
• 1st Urologic Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 41 Ethnikis Aminis Str, 54643, Thessaloniki, Greece.
• Urolithiasis. 2014 Dec 1; 42 (6): 527-32.

AbstractThe aim of the study is to determine whether dermal scarification is equally effective for treating acute renal colic compared to diclofenac sodium intramuscular therapy. A prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted with methodologic rigor based on CONSORT criteria. A total of 291 patients, aged ≥ 18 years, suffering from acute renal colic were included in this trial and randomly assigned in two groups. Patients in the first group (A) received endodermal injection (dermal scarification) of 1 ml normal saline at the area of intensity of pain. The second group (B) received 75 mg diclofenac sodium by intramuscular injection. The success of each method defined the primary end point. Pain intensity before and after treatment was assessed using a visual analog scale. The time onset and the duration of analgesia were also recorded. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding hematuria (p = 0.158), stone identification at KUB (p = 0.751) and mean pain intensity (p = 0.609) before treatment initiation. The method was successful in 75.5 % of patients in group A and 74.3 % of patients in group B (p = 0.812). Mean pain reduction was comparable, 5.65 ± 3.05 in group A and 5.34 ± 2.99 in group B (p = 0.379), with dermal scarification eliciting its effect considerably faster, whereas the duration of analgesia was longer in the diclofenac group (p < 0.05). In conclusion, dermal scarification could constitute an alternative method for treating renal colic as it is equally effective compared to the standard treatment of diclofenac sodium.

27 keywords...

hide…