Kidney StoneNCT04997668
Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Economics of SOLTIVE Compared to Ho:YAG Laser in Urolithiasis
A study testing SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser and Ho:YAG Laser in people with Kidney Stone, run by University of Kansas Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
To compare intraoperative as well as postoperative outcomes of SOLTIVE Thulium laser compared to Ho:YAG laser for the treatment of urolithiasis. The hypothesis is that utilizing the SOLTIVE Thulium laser for the treatment of urolithiasis will result in a more efficient procedure, with comparable stone free rate to… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Kidney Stone
- What is being tested?
- SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser and Ho:YAG Laser
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 2022to 25 Mar 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients must be 18 years of age or older
- Patients must be diagnosed with single stone burden <2.0 cm
- Patients must opt for definitive treatment with ureteroscopy with lase lithotripsy and stone basket extraction
Who cannot join
- Patients with multiple stones or stones bilaterally
- Patient with stones >2.0cm
- Patient who wish to continue with trial of passage
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, Kansas, 66160
About this study
To compare intraoperative as well as postoperative outcomes of SOLTIVE Thulium laser compared to Ho:YAG laser for the treatment of urolithiasis.
The hypothesis is that utilizing the SOLTIVE Thulium laser for the treatment of urolithiasis will result in a more efficient procedure, with comparable stone free rate to that of Holmium laser and subjective improvement in physician satisfaction.
Read the detailed description
Urologists utilize several different laser technologies which continue to rapidly advance and improve. The Holmium:YAG laser (Hm:YAG), Thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) laser and most recently, the thulium fiber are essential tools used in endourology. The holmium:YAG laser fiber is a 2120nm which has been the primary workhorse for many endoscopic procedures as it is broadly available with many versions and upgrades. The thulium:YAG laser has also shown its own set of advantages such as being lighter weight, having high frequency capability, generating less degradation, and consuming less energy.
The natural progression of lasers has continued with the development of the thulium fiber laser (TFL), which is a distinct technology from the previous Thulium:YAG lasers. This remains an important separation as prior studies with Tm:YAG the cannot be directly applied to this new technology. TFL's have a wavelength of 1940nm, different from the Hm:YAG laser of 2120nm and Tm:YAG at 2010nm, which is absorbed nearly five times more in water further allowing for improved efficiency and has less penetration of a depth of 0.15mm. In preclinical studies, the TFL demonstrated two to threefold higher comparison to holmium:YAG as well as four times less retropulsion.
The thulium fiber laser has been studied and applied in several different Urological procedures and the initial clinical data on these has been promising. Based on the temporal pulse shape, the TFL resulted in a two-fold ablation power in comparison to holmium as well as greater versitility. More specifically, the TFL has been effective in several studies during laser lithotripsy. In a comparison study of the TFL and high-powered holmium laser in ureteral stones, the procedures were faster, required fewer stents and no residual stones were seen at 30 days.
Specifically, Olympus's super-pulsed SOLTIVE thulium laser fiber was FDA approved for use in numerous urological indications including lithotripsy. This SOLTIVE thulium laser fiber is a super pulsed laser with numerous benefits including high frequency capabilities of 2,200 Hertz (Hz) compared to Ho:YAG capabilities of 80-100 Hz, decreased fiber degradation, continuous laser mode resulting in smoother cut, shallower tissue penetration (0.15 mm) which results in less surrounding tissue damage, 50 mm diameter laser fiber versus 200 mm allowing for increased maneuverability, visibility, and decreased energy consumption. The SOLTIVE laser allows for greater power through a smaller fiber decreasing fiber failure and endoscope damage. This greater tissue ablation capacity also results in improved hemostasis if identified during endoscopy. Finally, this laser is much smaller and compact in size in comparison to Holium lasers. It allows for a less crowded operating room and has the ability to be utilized in any operating room outlet in comparison to the 220 Volt outlet required by Holium.
In addition, as the prevalence of stones continues to rise, the economic burden of stone disease is also increasing. Despite this upward trend, there are very few studies that have looked at this economic impact of specific stone treatments based on particular laser subtypes. Perez-Ardavin et al looked at comparison between extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for stones smaller than 2cm which showed higher cost and increased perceived affection. The TFL may address some of this disparity with improved efficacy, less OR time and potential reduced need for ureteral stenting. Furthermore, the TFL may lead to decreased patient costs and allow for more procedures to be completed in turn providing benefit to both patients and hospitals.
Despite the favorable data and qualities in other TFL studies, there remains an insufficient data on clinical performance of the SOLTIVE Thulium laser fibers for treatment of urolithiasis, particularly in the United States. Additionally, there has been limited comparison of economic utility of the TFL to the widely utilized holmium laser fibers.
- Conditions
- Kidney Stone
- Being tested
- SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser, Ho:YAG Laser
- Medical subject headings
- Kidney Calculi
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber LaserDevice
Patients randomized to Arm A will undergo surgery to remove their kidney stone with FDA approved SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser.
Ho:YAG LaserDevice
Patients randomized to Arm B will undergo surgery to remove their kidney stone with FDA approved Ho:YAG laser.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser | Active comparator | SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser group (laser A) Receives: Device: SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser |
| Ho:YAG Laser | Active comparator | Ho:YAG Laser group (laser B) Receives: Device: Ho:YAG Laser |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
To evaluate the stone free rate of patients undergoing ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis at first follow up visit
To evaluate the stone free rate of patients undergoing ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis with the SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser in comparison to Ho:YAG laser with repeat imaging at the first follow up clinic visit.
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (11)
To compare Operation time SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare intraoperative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to total operative time, during surgery.
Measure the difference in time compared among the two groups. Looking at which approach has a shorter operation time. Unit will be minute differences between two groups
Measured: 1 day
To compare laser time SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare intraoperative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to total laser time during surgery. Comparing the two groups to see which laser used has less laser time. Unit will be minute differences between two groups
Measured: 1 day
To compare pedal time SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare intraoperative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to pedal time during surgery.
Comparing the two groups to see which laser used has less pedal time. Unit will be minute differences between two groups
Measured: 1 day
To compare laser setting SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare intraoperative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to laser setting during surgery. Laser setting will be a descriptive measure between the two groups.
Measured: 1 day
To compare use of basket during SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare intraoperative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to use of basketing and how many times the basket was inserted for fragments removal and dusting compared to fragmentation time.
Measure of unit it will be a count difference between the two groups.
Measured: 1 day
To compare post-operative complications of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare post-operative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to complications.
Measure will be rate of complication in percentage.
Measured: 6 months
To compare post-operative physician satisfaction with retropulsion of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare post-operative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to physician satisfaction with retropulsion with a measurement tool (questionnaire) that will be used to assess this outcome. The questionnaire will have a satisfaction scale (1-5).
Measured: 6 months
To compare post-operative physician satisfaction of endoscopic view of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare post-operative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to physician satisfaction with endoscopic views with a measurement tool (questionnaire) that will be used to assess this outcome. The questionnaire will have a satisfaction scale (1-5).
Measured: 6 months
To compare post-operative fiber degradation of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare post-operative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to fiber degradation with provider feedback. This will be measured in a Yes/No format. The measurement will be a count of each group that had fiber degradation.
Measured: 6 months
To compare post-operative stent placement of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare post-operative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to stent placement with provider feedback. This will be measured in a Yes/No format. The measurement will be a count of each group that had stent placed.
Measured: 6 months
To compare post-operative repeat procedure after SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
To compare post-operative components of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser in regard to if patient had a repeat procedure. This will be measured in a Yes/No format. The measurement will be a count of each group that had stent placed.
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Aug 2021
- Study start1 Sep 2022
- Primary completion26 Mar 2025
- Study completion25 Mar 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Kidney StoneStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Kansas Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Kansas Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Wilson Molina, MD, Principal investigator, University of Kansas Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04997668
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GU-EN-SS-01
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 16 Jul 2021
- Last updated
- 7 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Economics of SOLTIVE Compared to Ho:YAG Laser in Urolithiasis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04997668
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- GU-EN-SS-01
- Conditions
- Kidney Stone
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Kansas Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 26 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 Mar 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To compare intraoperative as well as postoperative outcomes of SOLTIVE Thulium laser compared to Ho:YAG laser for the treatment of urolithiasis.
The hypothesis is that utilizing the SOLTIVE Thulium laser for the treatment of urolithiasis will result in a more efficient procedure, with comparable stone free rate to that of Holmium laser and subjective improvement in physician satisfaction.
Detailed description
Urologists utilize several different laser technologies which continue to rapidly advance and improve. The Holmium:YAG laser (Hm:YAG), Thulium:YAG (Tm:YAG) laser and most recently, the thulium fiber are essential tools used in endourology. The holmium:YAG laser fiber is a 2120nm which has been the primary workhorse for many endoscopic procedures as it is broadly available with many versions and upgrades. The thulium:YAG laser has also shown its own set of advantages such as being lighter weight, having high frequency capability, generating less degradation, and consuming less energy.
The natural progression of lasers has continued with the development of the thulium fiber laser (TFL), which is a distinct technology from the previous Thulium:YAG lasers. This remains an important separation as prior studies with Tm:YAG the cannot be directly applied to this new technology. TFL's have a wavelength of 1940nm, different from the Hm:YAG laser of 2120nm and Tm:YAG at 2010nm, which is absorbed nearly five times more in water further allowing for improved efficiency and has less penetration of a depth of 0.15mm. In preclinical studies, the TFL demonstrated two to threefold higher comparison to holmium:YAG as well as four times less retropulsion.
The thulium fiber laser has been studied and applied in several different Urological procedures and the initial clinical data on these has been promising. Based on the temporal pulse shape, the TFL resulted in a two-fold ablation power in comparison to holmium as well as greater versitility. More specifically, the TFL has been effective in several studies during laser lithotripsy. In a comparison study of the TFL and high-powered holmium laser in ureteral stones, the procedures were faster, required fewer stents and no residual stones were seen at 30 days.
Specifically, Olympus's super-pulsed SOLTIVE thulium laser fiber was FDA approved for use in numerous urological indications including lithotripsy. This SOLTIVE thulium laser fiber is a super pulsed laser with numerous benefits including high frequency capabilities of 2,200 Hertz (Hz) compared to Ho:YAG capabilities of 80-100 Hz, decreased fiber degradation, continuous laser mode resulting in smoother cut, shallower tissue penetration (0.15 mm) which results in less surrounding tissue damage, 50 mm diameter laser fiber versus 200 mm allowing for increased maneuverability, visibility, and decreased energy consumption. The SOLTIVE laser allows for greater power through a smaller fiber decreasing fiber failure and endoscope damage. This greater tissue ablation capacity also results in improved hemostasis if identified during endoscopy. Finally, this laser is much smaller and compact in size in comparison to Holium lasers. It allows for a less crowded operating room and has the ability to be utilized in any operating room outlet in comparison to the 220 Volt outlet required by Holium.
In addition, as the prevalence of stones continues to rise, the economic burden of stone disease is also increasing. Despite this upward trend, there are very few studies that have looked at this economic impact of specific stone treatments based on particular laser subtypes. Perez-Ardavin et al looked at comparison between extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for stones smaller than 2cm which showed higher cost and increased perceived affection. The TFL may address some of this disparity with improved efficacy, less OR time and potential reduced need for ureteral stenting. Furthermore, the TFL may lead to decreased patient costs and allow for more procedures to be completed in turn providing benefit to both patients and hospitals.
Despite the favorable data and qualities in other TFL studies, there remains an insufficient data on clinical performance of the SOLTIVE Thulium laser fibers for treatment of urolithiasis, particularly in the United States. Additionally, there has been limited comparison of economic utility of the TFL to the widely utilized holmium laser fibers.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser | Active comparator | Device: SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber LaserSOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser group (laser A) |
| Ho:YAG Laser | Active comparator | Device: Ho:YAG LaserHo:YAG Laser group (laser B) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients must be 18 years of age or older
- Patients must be diagnosed with single stone burden <2.0 cm
- Patients must opt for definitive treatment with ureteroscopy with lase lithotripsy and stone basket extraction
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients with multiple stones or stones bilaterally
- Patient with stones >2.0cm
- Patient who wish to continue with trial of passage
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber LaserPatients randomized to Arm A will undergo surgery to remove their kidney stone with FDA approved SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser. | Device | SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser |
| Ho:YAG LaserPatients randomized to Arm B will undergo surgery to remove their kidney stone with FDA approved Ho:YAG laser. | Device | Ho:YAG Laser |
Primary outcome
To evaluate the stone free rate of patients undergoing ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis at first follow up visit
Time frame: 6 months
To evaluate the stone free rate of patients undergoing ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis with the SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser in comparison to Ho:YAG laser with repeat imaging at the first follow up clinic visit.
11 secondary outcomes
To compare Operation time SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 1 day
To compare laser time SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 1 day
To compare pedal time SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 1 day
To compare laser setting SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 1 day
To compare use of basket during SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 1 day
To compare post-operative complications of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 6 months
To compare post-operative physician satisfaction with retropulsion of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 6 months
To compare post-operative physician satisfaction of endoscopic view of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 6 months
To compare post-operative fiber degradation of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 6 months
To compare post-operative stent placement of SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 6 months
To compare post-operative repeat procedure after SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser vs Ho:YAG Laser.
Time frame: 6 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 May 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Kidney Stone
Not yet recruiting
Automated Versus Manual Irrigation During Flexible Ureteroscopy
Renal Stone Disease
Not yet recruiting
Optimal Intrarenal Pressure During Flexible Ureteroscopy
Renal Stone Disease
RecruitingObservational study
Stone Clearance With Aspiration vs Other Technologies: a Real-world Evidence Study
Urolithiasis, Stones, Kidney
Not yet recruiting
Intertransverse Process Block Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Kidney Stones, Urolithiasis, Hypocitraturia, Pain, Postoperative
Not yet recruiting
Comparison of Smart Pressure-Controlled Flexible Ureteroscopy and Flexible Suction Ureteral Access Sheath-Assisted Flexible Ureteroscopy for 2-3 cm Renal Stones
Kidney Stones
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Wilson Molina, MD principal investigator
University of Kansas Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing SOLTIVE Thulium Fiber Laser and Ho:YAG Laser in people with Kidney Stone, run by University of Kansas Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
To evaluate the stone free rate of patients undergoing ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis at first follow up visit (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 May 2026.