An Early Phase 1 interventional study of locally infilterating anaethesia like lidocaine and general anaethesia in Stone Ureter, sponsored by Assiut University. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-06-17.
Sponsored by Assiut University · Early Phase 1, Interventional, and Diagnostic
There are many treatment modalities available for managing renal and upper ureteric stones. They range from completely non-invasive outpatient procedures to invasive procedures requiring hospital admission and increased risks of complications. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a truly non-invasive procedure as opposed to other surgical treatments used, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (1).
The choice between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and other treatment modalities depends on several factors, including stone site, stone burden, stone CT density, etc. Another compounding factor in choosing the treatment modality is patient preference and expectation (1).
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others. Pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results (2).
As a truly non-invasive treatment option, ESWL has been widely used for treating renal, as well as ureteric, stones with satisfactory efficacy and minimal morbidity. However, the pain caused by ESWL is a major limitation of its efficacy, in addition to the associated patient dissatisfaction and negative experience that may result in the patient refraining from further sessions.
The relationship between pain and ESWL efficacy can be explained by multiple facts: firstly, the pain leads to inability to increase the energy delivered by the shockwaves to optimum levels; secondly, the pain usually leads to significant movement of the patient, as well as excessive respiratory movements, both of which move the stone away from the focus of shockwaves; lastly, the pain may be severe that the session is discontinued before delivery of effective number of shockwaves
There are many treatment modalities available for managing renal and upper ureteric stones. They range from completely non-invasive outpatient procedures to invasive procedures requiring hospital admission and increased risks of complications. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a truly non-invasive procedure as opposed to other surgical treatments used, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (1).
The choice between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and other treatment modalities depends on several factors, including stone site, stone burden, stone CT density, etc. Another compounding factor in choosing the treatment modality is patient preference and expectation (1).
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others. Pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results (2).
As a truly non-invasive treatment option, ESWL has been widely used for treating renal, as well as ureteric, stones with satisfactory efficacy and minimal morbidity. However, the pain caused by ESWL is a major limitation of its efficacy, in addition to the associated patient dissatisfaction and negative experience that may result in the patient refraining from further sessions.
The relationship between pain and ESWL efficacy can be explained by multiple facts: firstly, the pain leads to inability to increase the energy delivered by the shockwaves to optimum levels; secondly, the pain usually leads to significant movement of the patient, as well as excessive respiratory movements, both of which move the stone away from the focus of shockwaves; lastly, the pain may be severe that the session is discontinued before delivery of effective number of shockwaves
84 studies on the registry are indexed under Ureterolithiasis; 19 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 60 is below the median of 101 across 66 interventional studies indexed under Ureterolithiasis.
Browse Ureterolithiasis studies →Assiut University is the lead sponsor of 5,078 studies on the registry; 2,178 are open to participants now.
Of its 14 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
in which patients will undergo ESWL under locally infiltrated anaesthetic. Using ultrasound guidance, the quadratus lumborum muscle will be identified. Then a mixture of 0.5 % bupivacaine (10 ml) and 2 % lidocaine (10 ml) will be injected into the muscle as a single shot 20 minutes before the procedure.
Drug: locally infilterating anaethesia like lidocaine
in which patients will undergo ESWL under systemic analgesia. The latter will be achieved using one gram of paracetamol IV infusion at the beginning of the procedure. In case of unsatisfactory pain control in either group, systemic analgesia using IV Ketorolac injection will be used on demand or the required dose will be recorded at the end of the session.
Drug: general anaethesia
which patients will undergo ESWL under locally infiltrated anaesthetic. Using ultrasound guidance, the quadratus lumborum muscle will be identified. Then a mixture of 0.5 % bupivacaine (10 ml) and 2 % lidocaine (10 ml) will be injected into the muscle as a single shot 20 minutes before the procedure.
Also known as: Group I (study group)
which patients will undergo ESWL under systemic analgesia. The latter will be achieved using one gram of paracetamol IV infusion at the beginning of the procedure. In case of unsatisfactory pain control in either group, systemic analgesia using IV Ketorolac injection will be used on demand or the required dose will be recorded at the end of the session.
Also known as: Group II (control group)
Comparison between local and systemic analgesia
Pain score during the session using visual analogue scale
Time frame: Baseline
Comparison between local and systemic analgesia
4. Two-month stone free rate (SFR)
Time frame: Baseline
No study locations are listed for this record.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jun 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.