Renal StoneNCT05697341
Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy VS Stented Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Stone Management
A study testing Ultra-Mini-PCNL and Stented SWL in people with Renal Stone, run by Ain Shams University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
Nephrolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract. As minimally invasive technologies develop, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are different surgeries to treat renal stones. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Renal Stone
- What is being tested?
- Ultra-Mini-PCNL and Stented SWL
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 90 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2021to 1 Jun 2022
- 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 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- patients between 18 and 60 years
- complaining of radioopaque renal stones ranging from 10-20 mm.
- BMI not exceeding 40
Who cannot join
- radiolucent stones,
- smaller than 10 mm or larger than 20 mm stones
- congenital renal anomalies or spinal deformity
- BMI exceeding 40.
- Patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis
- pregnant females
- untreated UTI.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: A Comparative Study Between Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Stented Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones in Egypt
Nephrolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract. As minimally invasive technologies develop, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are different surgeries to treat renal stones.
Aim of the Study is to compare results, safety and outcome of Ultra mini PCNL versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of renal calculi from 10 - 20 mm. Patients were randomized to either Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or stented SWL group via the closed envelope method. Patient data was collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess operative time, hospital stay, complications regarding fever, hematuria and need for blood transfusion, residual stones and need for retreatment.
Read the detailed description
Nephrolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract, following urinary tract infections and Prostatic diseases. It also has a 1-year recurrence rate of 7% and 10-year recurrence rate of 50%.
Management of renal stones had seen a great shift over the last ten years. The need to find a balance between morbidity and stone clearance is always the milestone of treatment choice. Low risk procedure with high retreatment percentage vs another relatively higher risk procedure with lower retreatment chances.
As minimally invasive technologies develop, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are different surgeries to treat renal stones. Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries have their place only in highly selected patients.
In the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on Urolithiasis, PCNL is a treatment of choice (TOC) for renal stones > 20 mm, SWL or RIRS is the first-line therapy for renal stones < 10 mm, and SWL or endourologic treatment (all PCNL and ureteroscopic interventions) can be performed for stones 10-20 mm.
SWL is a minimally invasive intervention with good patient tolerance; it is regarded as the first line treatment for nephrolithiasis < 20 mm in size. Poor clearance of lower calyceal stone fragments due to gravity or unfavorable infundibulopelvic angle limits the efficacy of SWL for treating lower calyceal stones.
flexible ureteroscopy increased quality and performance of upper urinary tract exploration, allowing the treatment the majority of stones at all sites. Experiences with RIRS have revealed higher stone-free rate (SFR) with less risk of renal damage and bleeding. Nevertheless, RIRS is also associated with some disadvantages as the possible need for staged procedures, risk of ureteral injuries and the costs of acquisition and maintenance of the complex endourological instruments and those issues can be possible factors that might have limited the capillary diffusion of this endoscopic procedure.
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (24-30F) remains the standard procedure for treating large renal calculi. While achieving high SFR, it also has many drawbacks such as bleeding, postoperative pain, and a long recovery period due to its large access tract, so the mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (14-22F) with a smaller tract size came into existence. To reduce renal parenchymal injury associated with standard PCNL, minimally invasive PCNL with a smaller tract size has been developed. Depending on the size of the access tract, minimally invasive PCNL can be classified into Mini-PCNL (14- 22Fr), Ultra-mini-PCNL (11-13Fr).
PCNL carried a significantly higher stone free rate than RIRS, especially for lower calyceal stones (OR=2.65, P=.003), however Mini-PCNL was at the expense of a longer hospital stay and an increased hemoglobin drop.
Although PCNL could exhibit a stone free rate of 93.8%, a global survey revealed that it carried a complication rate of up to 14.5%.
Ulra-mini-PCNL offer a particular advantage for difficult to access calculi, impacted lower pole calculi with an acute infundibular angle or stones in a calyceal diverticulum, with the greater advantage of reduced bleeding.
This study was conducted at Urology department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. Inclusion criteria included patients between 18 and 60 years, complaining of radioopaque renal stones ranging from 10-20 mm with BMI not exceeding 40 Exclusion criteria were patients who had radiolucent stones, smaller than 10 mm or larger than 20 mm, with congenital renal anomalies or spinal deformity or BMI exceeding 40. Patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis or pregnant females or untreated urinary tract infection were also excluded.
In this study patients were recruited from the outpatient urology clinic between March 2021 till March 2022.
Using Power Analysis and Sample Size Software version 15 program for sample size calculation after reviewing results from a previous study (Zhang et al, 2019) we assume a medium effect size difference between the two groups regarding the stone-free rate ( d=0.6), based on these findings sample size of 90 patients (45 per group) achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of zero effect size when the population effect size is 0.60 and the significance level (alpha) is 0.050 using a two-sided z test.
Patients were randomized to either Group A Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or Group B stented SWL group via the closed envelope method.
Preoperative evaluation including careful history taking, general and local examination, urine analysis, perioperative labs (CBC, bleeding profile, liver and renal functions), Computerized tomography Urinary Tract (CTUT) with Hounsfield unit estimation and Plain X-ray of the urinary tract (KUB).
All patients were given perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In The Ultra-Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced in the renal pelvis, and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anesthesia. Patients were then repositioned to the prone position. Ultra-mini-PCNLs were done in a prone position by a single consultant. The desired calyx was punctured with a Cook diamond tip puncture needle under fluoroscopy guidance using standard bull's eye technique. Single tract dilatation with One Step Dilator (11Fr), with central channel for guide wires with its Operating Sheath (Storz Dilator and Operating Sheaths for Minimal Invasive PCNL (MIP) XS) under fluoroscopy guidance. Storz Nephroscope for MIP XS / S along with Swiss Lithoclast master pneumatic lithotripter with 1/0.8 mm probe was used for stone fragmentation. Stone fragments are flushed out on rapid removal of the endoscope, due to a 'vortex' effect and with wash through the operating sheath using a 6 Fr. nelaton catheter.
In the stented Extracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy (ESWL) group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced in the renal pelvis, and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anaesthesia JJ is applied either 5-26 or 5-28 according to the patient. ESWL was administered with an electromagnetic shockwave lithotripter (Siemens electromagnetic lithotripters devices). Patients were positioned supine with the shock head from the back. Fluoroscopy was used for the localization and monitoring of stone fragmentation. All patients received shocks at a frequency of 60/min. An average of approximately 2500-3000 shocks was targeted in all patients.
Follow up of patients was done postoperative immediately including careful and detailed history taking and examination including pain, fever, sepsis, and hematuria. Serum Hb level, S.creatinine, BUN, Na+, K+
- Conditions
- Renal Stone
- Being tested
- Ultra-Mini-PCNL, Stented SWL
- Keywords
- Nephrolithiasis, Ultra-Mini-PCNL, Stented SWL
- Medical subject headings
- Nephrolithiasis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ultra-Mini-PCNLProcedure or surgery
treatment to extract or disintegrate renal stones
Stented SWLProcedure or surgery
treatment to disintegrate renal stones in the presence of a JJ
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Ultra-Mini-PCNL Group (A) | Active comparator | In The Ultra-Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anesthesia. Patients were then repositioned to the prone position. Ultra-mini-PCNLs were done in a prone position by a single consultant. The desired calyx was punctured with a Cook diamond tip 18G puncture needle under fluoroscopy guidance using standard bull's eye technique. Single tract dilatation with One Step Dilator (11Fr), with central channel for guide wires with its Operating Sheath (Storzz Dilator and Operating Sheaths for MIP XS) under fluoroscopy guidance. Storzz Nephroscope for MIP XS / S along with Swiss Lithoclast master pneumatic lithotripter with 1/0.8 mm probe was used for stone fragmentation. Stone fragments are flushed out on rapid removal of the endoscope, due to a 'vortex' effect and with wash through the operating sheath using a 6 Fr. nelaton catheter. Receives: Procedure: Ultra-Mini-PCNL |
| Stented SWL Group (B) | Active comparator | In the stented ESWL group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced in the renal pelvis, and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anathesia. JJ is applied either 5-26 or 5-28 accorging to the patient. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy ESWL was administered with an electromagnetic shockwave lithotripter (Siemens electromagnetic lithotripters devices). Patients were positioned supine with the shock head from the back. Fluoroscopy was used for the localization and monitoring of stone fragmentation. All patients received shocks at a frequency of 60/min. An average of approximately 2500-3000 shocks was targeted in all patients. Receives: Procedure: Stented SWL |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Stone-free status
The complete stone clearance or presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments (<4 mm) 2 or 4 weeks after the final procedure was regarded as stone-free
Measured: at 2 or 4 weeks after ultra-mini-PCNL or stented SWL
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Jan 2023
- Study start1 Mar 2021
- Primary completion1 Mar 2022
- Study completion1 Jun 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Renal StoneStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ain Shams UniversityThe 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
- Model description
- 90 Patients were enrolled from the outpatient urology clinic of Ain Shams University hospital (Demredash Hospital) randomized to either Group A Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or Group B stented SWL group via the closed envelope method.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ain Shams University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Younan Ramsis Samir, Ain Shams University
- Investigators
- Ahmed Radwan, MD, Study chair, Assisstant Professof of Urology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05697341
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- YRS0001
- Status last verified
- Jan 2023
- First submitted
- 13 Jan 2023
- Last updated
- 25 Jan 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T, Sarica K, Seitz C, Petrik A, Turk C. Metabolic evaluation and recurrence prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines. Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):750-63. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.029. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
PubMed 25454613Kim CH, Chung DY, Rha KH, Lee JY, Lee SH. Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Dec 30;57(1):26. doi: 10.3390/medicina57010026.
PubMed 33396839Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, Feng SJ, Gao R, Luo DY, Liu JM, Wang KJ. Different Tract Sizes of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2017 Nov;31(11):1101-1110. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0547. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
PubMed 28950716Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G, Provenzano M, Osmolorskij B, Sanguedolce F, Montanari E, Macchione N, Pummer K, Mirone V, De Sio M, Taverna G. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol. 2017 Dec;35(12):1967-1975. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
PubMed 28875295
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Jan 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparative Study Between Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Stented Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones in Egypt
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05697341
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- YRS0001
- Conditions
- Renal Stone
- Keywords
- Nephrolithiasis, Ultra-Mini-PCNL, Stented SWL
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ain Shams UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jun 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Jan 2023 (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.
Nephrolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract. As minimally invasive technologies develop, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are different surgeries to treat renal stones.
Aim of the Study is to compare results, safety and outcome of Ultra mini PCNL versus stented extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for the management of renal calculi from 10 - 20 mm. Patients were randomized to either Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or stented SWL group via the closed envelope method. Patient data was collected preoperatively, immediately postoperatively and 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess operative time, hospital stay, complications regarding fever, hematuria and need for blood transfusion, residual stones and need for retreatment.
Detailed description
Nephrolithiasis is the third most common disease of the urinary tract, following urinary tract infections and Prostatic diseases. It also has a 1-year recurrence rate of 7% and 10-year recurrence rate of 50%.
Management of renal stones had seen a great shift over the last ten years. The need to find a balance between morbidity and stone clearance is always the milestone of treatment choice. Low risk procedure with high retreatment percentage vs another relatively higher risk procedure with lower retreatment chances.
As minimally invasive technologies develop, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are different surgeries to treat renal stones. Open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries have their place only in highly selected patients.
In the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on Urolithiasis, PCNL is a treatment of choice (TOC) for renal stones > 20 mm, SWL or RIRS is the first-line therapy for renal stones < 10 mm, and SWL or endourologic treatment (all PCNL and ureteroscopic interventions) can be performed for stones 10-20 mm.
SWL is a minimally invasive intervention with good patient tolerance; it is regarded as the first line treatment for nephrolithiasis < 20 mm in size. Poor clearance of lower calyceal stone fragments due to gravity or unfavorable infundibulopelvic angle limits the efficacy of SWL for treating lower calyceal stones.
flexible ureteroscopy increased quality and performance of upper urinary tract exploration, allowing the treatment the majority of stones at all sites. Experiences with RIRS have revealed higher stone-free rate (SFR) with less risk of renal damage and bleeding. Nevertheless, RIRS is also associated with some disadvantages as the possible need for staged procedures, risk of ureteral injuries and the costs of acquisition and maintenance of the complex endourological instruments and those issues can be possible factors that might have limited the capillary diffusion of this endoscopic procedure.
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (24-30F) remains the standard procedure for treating large renal calculi. While achieving high SFR, it also has many drawbacks such as bleeding, postoperative pain, and a long recovery period due to its large access tract, so the mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (14-22F) with a smaller tract size came into existence. To reduce renal parenchymal injury associated with standard PCNL, minimally invasive PCNL with a smaller tract size has been developed. Depending on the size of the access tract, minimally invasive PCNL can be classified into Mini-PCNL (14- 22Fr), Ultra-mini-PCNL (11-13Fr).
PCNL carried a significantly higher stone free rate than RIRS, especially for lower calyceal stones (OR=2.65, P=.003), however Mini-PCNL was at the expense of a longer hospital stay and an increased hemoglobin drop.
Although PCNL could exhibit a stone free rate of 93.8%, a global survey revealed that it carried a complication rate of up to 14.5%.
Ulra-mini-PCNL offer a particular advantage for difficult to access calculi, impacted lower pole calculi with an acute infundibular angle or stones in a calyceal diverticulum, with the greater advantage of reduced bleeding.
This study was conducted at Urology department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University. Inclusion criteria included patients between 18 and 60 years, complaining of radioopaque renal stones ranging from 10-20 mm with BMI not exceeding 40 Exclusion criteria were patients who had radiolucent stones, smaller than 10 mm or larger than 20 mm, with congenital renal anomalies or spinal deformity or BMI exceeding 40. Patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis or pregnant females or untreated urinary tract infection were also excluded.
In this study patients were recruited from the outpatient urology clinic between March 2021 till March 2022.
Using Power Analysis and Sample Size Software version 15 program for sample size calculation after reviewing results from a previous study (Zhang et al, 2019) we assume a medium effect size difference between the two groups regarding the stone-free rate ( d=0.6), based on these findings sample size of 90 patients (45 per group) achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of zero effect size when the population effect size is 0.60 and the significance level (alpha) is 0.050 using a two-sided z test.
Patients were randomized to either Group A Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or Group B stented SWL group via the closed envelope method.
Preoperative evaluation including careful history taking, general and local examination, urine analysis, perioperative labs (CBC, bleeding profile, liver and renal functions), Computerized tomography Urinary Tract (CTUT) with Hounsfield unit estimation and Plain X-ray of the urinary tract (KUB).
All patients were given perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In The Ultra-Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced in the renal pelvis, and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anesthesia. Patients were then repositioned to the prone position. Ultra-mini-PCNLs were done in a prone position by a single consultant. The desired calyx was punctured with a Cook diamond tip puncture needle under fluoroscopy guidance using standard bull's eye technique. Single tract dilatation with One Step Dilator (11Fr), with central channel for guide wires with its Operating Sheath (Storz Dilator and Operating Sheaths for Minimal Invasive PCNL (MIP) XS) under fluoroscopy guidance. Storz Nephroscope for MIP XS / S along with Swiss Lithoclast master pneumatic lithotripter with 1/0.8 mm probe was used for stone fragmentation. Stone fragments are flushed out on rapid removal of the endoscope, due to a 'vortex' effect and with wash through the operating sheath using a 6 Fr. nelaton catheter.
In the stented Extracorporeal ShockWave Lithotripsy (ESWL) group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced in the renal pelvis, and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anaesthesia JJ is applied either 5-26 or 5-28 according to the patient. ESWL was administered with an electromagnetic shockwave lithotripter (Siemens electromagnetic lithotripters devices). Patients were positioned supine with the shock head from the back. Fluoroscopy was used for the localization and monitoring of stone fragmentation. All patients received shocks at a frequency of 60/min. An average of approximately 2500-3000 shocks was targeted in all patients.
Follow up of patients was done postoperative immediately including careful and detailed history taking and examination including pain, fever, sepsis, and hematuria. Serum Hb level, S.creatinine, BUN, Na+, K+
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- 90 Patients were enrolled from the outpatient urology clinic of Ain Shams University hospital (Demredash Hospital) randomized to either Group A Ultra-Mini-Percutaneous nephrolithotomy group or Group B stented SWL group via the closed envelope method.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Ultra-Mini-PCNL Group (A) | Active comparator | Procedure: Ultra-Mini-PCNLIn The Ultra-Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anesthesia. Patients were then repositioned to the prone position. Ultra-mini-PCNLs were done in a prone position by a single consultant. The desired calyx was punctured with a Cook diamond tip 18G puncture needle under fluoroscopy guidance using standard bull's eye technique. Single tract dilatation with One Step Dilator (11Fr), with central channel for guide wires with its Operating Sheath (Storzz Dilator and Operating Sheaths for MIP XS) under fluoroscopy guidance. Storzz Nephroscope for MIP XS / S along with Swiss Lithoclast master pneumatic lithotripter with 1/0.8 mm probe was used for stone fragmentation. Stone fragments are flushed out on rapid removal of the endoscope, due to a 'vortex' effect and with wash through the operating sheath using a 6 Fr. nelaton catheter. |
| Stented SWL Group (B) | Active comparator | Procedure: Stented SWLIn the stented ESWL group, a 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was introduced in the renal pelvis, and a retrograde pyelogram was performed in the Lithotomy position after the induction of general anathesia. JJ is applied either 5-26 or 5-28 accorging to the patient. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy ESWL was administered with an electromagnetic shockwave lithotripter (Siemens electromagnetic lithotripters devices). Patients were positioned supine with the shock head from the back. Fluoroscopy was used for the localization and monitoring of stone fragmentation. All patients received shocks at a frequency of 60/min. An average of approximately 2500-3000 shocks was targeted in all patients. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- patients between 18 and 60 years
- complaining of radioopaque renal stones ranging from 10-20 mm.
- BMI not exceeding 40
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- radiolucent stones,
- smaller than 10 mm or larger than 20 mm stones
- congenital renal anomalies or spinal deformity
- BMI exceeding 40.
- Patients with uncorrected bleeding diathesis
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Ultra-Mini-PCNLtreatment to extract or disintegrate renal stones | Procedure or surgery | Ultra-Mini-PCNL Group (A) |
| Stented SWLtreatment to disintegrate renal stones in the presence of a JJ | Procedure or surgery | Stented SWL Group (B) |
Primary outcome
Stone-free status
Time frame: at 2 or 4 weeks after ultra-mini-PCNL or stented SWL
The complete stone clearance or presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments (<4 mm) 2 or 4 weeks after the final procedure was regarded as stone-free
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 25 Jan 2023.
- Background: PubMed 25454613Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T, Sarica K, Seitz C, Petrik A, Turk C. Metabolic evaluation and recurrence prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines. Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):750-63. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.029. Epub 2014 Nov 20.
- Background: PubMed 33396839Kim CH, Chung DY, Rha KH, Lee JY, Lee SH. Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Dec 30;57(1):26. doi: 10.3390/medicina57010026.
- Background: PubMed 28950716Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, Feng SJ, Gao R, Luo DY, Liu JM, Wang KJ. Different Tract Sizes of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Endourol. 2017 Nov;31(11):1101-1110. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0547. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
- Background: PubMed 28875295Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G, Provenzano M, Osmolorskij B, Sanguedolce F, Montanari E, Macchione N, Pummer K, Mirone V, De Sio M, Taverna G. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol. 2017 Dec;35(12):1967-1975. doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-7. Epub 2017 Sep 5.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Renal 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.
Ahmed Radwan, MD study chair
Assisstant Professof of Urology, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ultra-Mini-PCNL and Stented SWL in people with Renal Stone, run by Ain Shams University at 1 site in Egypt.
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 7 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 25 Jan 2023. 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 Egypt. 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?
Stone-free status (time frame: at 2 or 4 weeks after ultra-mini-PCNL or stented SWL). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05697341, which also lists 4 linked publications.
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 25 Jan 2023.