An interventional study of shock wave lithotripsy and Flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy in Stone Ureter, sponsored by Assiut University. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-12-09.
Sponsored by Assiut University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This comparison between ESWL and flexible ureteroscopy aims to explore the efficacy, safety, and outcomes of these treatments for upper ureteric stones under 15 mm, focusing on stone-free rates, procedural risks, recovery times, and recurrence rates. A thorough understanding of these techniques is essential for optimizing patient outcomes and personalizing treatment strategies.
study aim to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cost of SWL compared to flexible uretroscopy in management patients with upper ureteric stone less than 15 mm in size
The management of upper ureteric stones, particularly those less than 15 mm in size, has seen significant advancements with the development of minimally invasive techniques. Urolithiasis is a common condition, and selecting the most appropriate treatment is crucial for effective stone clearance and minimizing complications. Two widely used approaches in treating upper ureteric stones are Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS).
ESWL, a non-invasive procedure, uses focused shock waves to fragment the stone into smaller pieces that can be passed naturally through the urinary tract. Its non-invasiveness makes it an attractive option for many patients; however, its success is influenced by factors such as stone composition, location, and patient anatomy. In contrast, Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) is a minimally invasive endoscopic technique where a flexible ureteroscope is passed through the urinary tract to directly visualize and fragment the stone using a laser (usually a Holmium: YAG laser). This method allows for a more targeted approach and is often used when ESWL is less effective or contraindicated.
ESWL and FURS have distinct advantages and limitations, and the choice between them depends on factors including stone size, density, location, and patient-specific considerations such as body habitus and anatomical variations.
84 studies on the registry are indexed under Ureterolithiasis; 19 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 42 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:
radiolucent stones that are not visible on ultrasound. severe metabolic disturbances (eg, cystinuria, primary hyperparathyroidism, or renal tubular acidosis)
The surgical technique of shock wave lithotripsy
Procedure: shock wave lithotripsy
Flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy
Procedure: Flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy will be performed using a third-generation electromagnetic lithotripter The focal depth is 110 mm; the focal area is 7 mm (radial) and 45-50 mm (axial), and the focal pressure is 6-30 MPa). The procedure is performed in a supine or prone position without anesthesia. Stone localization and simultaneous real-time monitoring during the process will be performed by ultrasound). The shock frequency is 60-90 (shock waves/min). The total number of shock waves applied for one session is between 1500 and 2500 waves, or the session is stopped at a significant stone fragmentation is detected. The voltage applied per session ranged from 10 to 16 kV with stepwise power ramping strategy. All procedures in the SWL group are outpatient procedures.
All F-URS cases will be performed by a single surgeon (HMI). A guidewire is placed in the upper urinary tract through a rigid cystoscope under fluoroscopic guidance. An 8-10 F dual lumen catheter is used to dilate the intramural ureter and to fix a second guidewire with hydrophilic coat. The 7.5 F flexible ureteroscope is passed into the upper urinary tract in a monorail fashion over the second wire. A holmium-YAG laser is used at an energy setting of 0.8-1 J and a rate of 10-15 Hz. A 200 µm laser fibre is used for delivering laser energy to the stones. A 2.2 F tipless nitinol basket is used to displace the stones from the lower pole to an upper pole calyx before disintegration. Adequate fragmentation is considered when fragments are smaller than the diameter of the guide wire. Stone fragments will be left for spontaneous passage. At the end of the procedure, the whole collecting system will be inspected for residual stones and a double pigtail ureteric stent will be left for 2 weeks t
The stone-free rate (SFR)
The stone-free rate (SFR) is defined as no evidence of clinically significant stone fragments (≥ 4 mm in size) in combination with a plain X-ray of the urinary tract (KUB) and urinary ultrasound one month after SWL or F-URS
Time frame: 1 month
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: Undecided
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Dec 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.