Mutlu, HüseyinErtaş, KasımKokulu, KamilSert, Ekrem TahaDiri, Mehmet AkifGül, Murat2021-07-022021-07-0220211368-5031https:/dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13969https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12451/8281*Mutlu, Hüseyin ( Aksaray, Yazar ) *Sert, Ekrem Taha ( Aksaray, Yazar )Background: There is growing interest in physical medicine treatment options for renal colic. In this study, we aimed to determine whether or not heat-patch treatment with no drug was effective in relieving renal colic. Methods: For this purpose, patients who were diagnosed with renal colic in the emergency department were randomised to have either heat-patch or sham treatment. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores of renal colic, body temperature (Btemp), and sub-patch skin temperature (Stemp) values were measured at 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. In addition, the salvage treatment needs of the groups were compared. Results: The average age of the study group was 30.5 ± 8.3 years and that of the sham group was 31.0 ± 8.2 years (P =.75). According to the baseline VAS score of the patients, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes VAS scores significantly decreased in the heat-patch group (P <.001). The Btemp values did not differ significantly between the heat-patch and sham groups. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of Stemp values at 0 and 15 minutes (P =.39 and P =.10, respectively). However, there was a significant difference in the heat-patch group in terms of Stemp values at 30, 45, and 60 minutes compared with the sham group (P <.001). The salvage treatment rates for the heat-patch and sham groups were 11.5% and 31.4%, respectively (P =.01). Conclusion: As non-pharmaceutical treatment, the heat-patch has been shown to be a possible candidate for pain relief in patients with urolithiasis. Further research should concentrate on multicentre and large scale randomised studies.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccessAn Effective Treatment OptionArticle755--10.1111/ijcp.1396933368937Q1WOS:000605311500001Q2