Kidney CalculiNCT01619735
"Dusting" Versus "Basketing" - Treatment Of Intrarenal Stones
An observational study of Kidney Calculi and Kidney Stones, run by Mayo Clinic at 9 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes of an established procedure for treatment of kidney stones that are present within the inner aspect of the kidney. This procedure is called flexible ureteroscopy, which involves placing a small camera through the urethra while anesthetized (asleep), up the ureter (the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Kidney Calculi, Kidney Stones, Nephrolithiasis
- How many people
- 178 participants
- Where
- 9 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- Apr 2013to 10 Jun 2017
- Phase
- Observational
- 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
Study population: Patients will be identified at clinic visit or hospital admission
Who may be able to join
- Radiopaque renal stones above the level of the ureteropelvic junction
- Kidney stones must range up to 20 mm in size or in the case of multiple stones the conglomerate diameter (additive maximal diameter of all stones on axial imaging of computed tomography) up to 20 mm is required for inclusion
- Patient must be a suitable operative candidate for flexible ureteroscopy
Who cannot join
- Patients who have had prior ipsilateral upper urinary tract reconstructive procedures or history of ipsilateral ureteral stricture
- Patients who have undergone prior radiotherapy to the abdomen or pelvis and those who have a neurogenic bladder or spinal cord injury
- Pregnant subjects
Trial locations and contacts
9 sites in 2 countries.
9 sites in 2 countries
United States8 sites
James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute
Baltimore, Maryland, 21287
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, 02114
Cleveland Clinic
Cleveland, Ohio, 44195
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio, 43210
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Nashville, Tennessee, 37232
Bellevue Hospital
New York, New York, 10016
UCSD
San Diego, California, 92103
Mayo Clinic
Scottsdale, Arizona, 85259
About this study
Official title: Ureteroscopic Treatment of Intrarenal Stones - A Comparative Analysis of "Dusting" Versus "Basketing" With Holmium Laser Lithotripsy
The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes of an established procedure for treatment of kidney stones that are present within the inner aspect of the kidney. This procedure is called flexible ureteroscopy, which involves placing a small camera through the urethra while anesthetized (asleep), up the ureter (the tube connecting kidney and bladder) and into the kidney to the kidney stone. Then, the stone is broken into tiny fragments using a small laser called a Holmium laser. While this treatment is a well-established option for treatment of these stones, there are several different techniques used to help eliminate them from the kidney. Some urologists treat the stone by a method called "active" extraction whereby the ureteroscope is passed back and forth into the kidney to remove all visible stone fragments. Others use a method called "dusting" whereby the stones are broken into tiny fragments or "dust" with the intention that achieving such a small stone size will allow the stones to pass spontaneously. There has not been a systematic and rigorous comparison of these techniques in terms of treatment outcomes. By collecting information on the success of treatment, the investigators hope to provide benchmark data for future studies of kidney stone treatment and improve the care of all patients who need surgery for their kidney stones.
The investigators hypothesize that the stone free rate for renal stone(s) 5-15 mm is around 90% and that the stone clearance rate with be 20% higher in those patients that undergo complete stone fragment extraction versus those that undergo stone dusting (residual fragments < 2mm).
Read the detailed description
To date, there is inadequate literature to confidently determine the ideal technique of stone extraction during ureteroscopy, an endourologic procedure for the treatment of kidney stones. The goals of ureteroscopy for intrarenal stones are to fragment stones and minimize residual fragments while doing so in a safe and expeditious way with minimal harm to the patient. Options for the treatment of intrarenal stones consist of using a basket to pull them out or a laser to break them into small fragments. When stones are deemed too large to be basketed primarily, the standard preference in ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy is use of the Holmium:YAG laser which can effectively break stones into fragments small enough to remove or pass spontaneously.
There is no consensus on how to achieve optimal stone clearance once the primary stone is fragmented with lithotripsy. Many urologists choose to \"dust\" the stone by breaking it into tiny fragments \< 1 - 2 mm in size with the assumption that stone fragments of such a small size will pass spontaneously after surgery. This can theoretically decrease operative times and lower risk of ureteral trauma by minimizing repetitive introduction and removal of the ureteroscope. Others choose to actively extract each possible stone fragment during the procedure thereby increasing the immediate stone-free outcome.
Active extraction however typically increases costs as it requires use of a basket or grasper and ureteral access sheath. To date, only one prospective, randomized study has addressed the practice of active extraction vs spontaneous passage, the results of which suggested higher rates of residual stone fragments, hospital readmissions and need for ancillary procedures when stones were not actively extracted (8). This study was criticized for not following a standardized operative protocol and not reporting several important outcomes including stone composition. Additionally, this study used semirigid ureteroscopy, specifically addressed ureteral rather than intrarenal stones, and did not follow a "dusting" protocol assuring minimal size of residual fragments.
Complete eradication of stone fragments is one of the primary outcomes of ureteroscopy as residual renal stone fragments after ureteroscopy have been shown to lead to a subsequent stone event in approximately 20% of cases(9). However, maximizing eradication of stone fragments must not come at the expense of the patient. For this reason it is important to consider the operative variables associated with the different techniques employed to clear stone during such procedures.
For example, an average of nearly three times as much laser energy was used to fragment the stone into tiny pieces compared to active extraction (8). Conversely, active extraction of stone fragments requires introducing and removing the ureteroscope through the ureter a greater number of times in order to facilitate stone removal; which generally requires use of a ureteral access sheath, a treatment with its own associated risk.(10). The short term and long term differences resulting from use of these techniques is currently unknown.
- Conditions
- Kidney Calculi, Kidney Stones, Nephrolithiasis, Renal Stones
- Keywords
- Kidney Calculi, Kidney Stones, Nephrolithiasis, Renal Stones
- Medical subject headings
- Kidney Calculi, Nephrolithiasis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Fragments basketed | "Active" extraction is whereby the ureteroscope is passed back and forth into the kidney to remove all visible stone fragments. | |
| Fragments dusted | "Dusting" is whereby the stones are broken into tiny fragments or "dust" with the intention that achieving such a small stone size will allow the stones to pass spontaneously. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Stone-free rate
To assess for stone-free rate using K.U.B. (kidney-ureter-bladder) plain radiograph and renal ultrasound. If there is a discrepancy in follow up imaging between the presence of residual stones or fragments between the KUB and renal ultrasound, the KUB will be considered the reference standard for small fragments less than 4mm unless the stone composition is uric acid. If fragments 5 mm or larger exist it will be up to the discretion of the surgeon to order a CT to better delineate the presence of residual stones and their impact on the clinical management of that patient.
Measured: 4-6 weeks post-operatively
Secondary outcomes (2)
Stone recurrence rate
Stone recurrence rate one year after surgery
Measured: 12 months post operatively
Retreatment rate
Evaluating the retreatment rate one year post operation
Measured: 12 months post operatively
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Jun 2012 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2013
- Primary completion22 Mar 2017
- Study completion10 Jun 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Kidney CalculiStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mayo ClinicThe 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 178 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mitchell Humphreys, Mayo Clinic
- Investigators
- Mitchell Humphreys, MD, Principal investigator, Mayo Clinic
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01619735
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 12-002553
- Status last verified
- Sep 2018
- First submitted
- 12 Jun 2012
- Last updated
- 18 Sep 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Sep 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Ureteroscopic Treatment of Intrarenal Stones - A Comparative Analysis of "Dusting" Versus "Basketing" With Holmium Laser Lithotripsy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01619735
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 12-002553
- Conditions
- Kidney Calculi, Kidney Stones, Nephrolithiasis, Renal Stones
- Keywords
- Kidney Calculi, Kidney Stones, Nephrolithiasis, Renal Stones
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 178 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Apr 2013
- Primary completion
- 22 Mar 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Jun 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Jun 2012 (estimated)
- 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.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes of an established procedure for treatment of kidney stones that are present within the inner aspect of the kidney. This procedure is called flexible ureteroscopy, which involves placing a small camera through the urethra while anesthetized (asleep), up the ureter (the tube connecting kidney and bladder) and into the kidney to the kidney stone. Then, the stone is broken into tiny fragments using a small laser called a Holmium laser. While this treatment is a well-established option for treatment of these stones, there are several different techniques used to help eliminate them from the kidney. Some urologists treat the stone by a method called "active" extraction whereby the ureteroscope is passed back and forth into the kidney to remove all visible stone fragments. Others use a method called "dusting" whereby the stones are broken into tiny fragments or "dust" with the intention that achieving such a small stone size will allow the stones to pass spontaneously. There has not been a systematic and rigorous comparison of these techniques in terms of treatment outcomes. By collecting information on the success of treatment, the investigators hope to provide benchmark data for future studies of kidney stone treatment and improve the care of all patients who need surgery for their kidney stones.
The investigators hypothesize that the stone free rate for renal stone(s) 5-15 mm is around 90% and that the stone clearance rate with be 20% higher in those patients that undergo complete stone fragment extraction versus those that undergo stone dusting (residual fragments < 2mm).
Detailed description
To date, there is inadequate literature to confidently determine the ideal technique of stone extraction during ureteroscopy, an endourologic procedure for the treatment of kidney stones. The goals of ureteroscopy for intrarenal stones are to fragment stones and minimize residual fragments while doing so in a safe and expeditious way with minimal harm to the patient. Options for the treatment of intrarenal stones consist of using a basket to pull them out or a laser to break them into small fragments. When stones are deemed too large to be basketed primarily, the standard preference in ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy is use of the Holmium:YAG laser which can effectively break stones into fragments small enough to remove or pass spontaneously.
There is no consensus on how to achieve optimal stone clearance once the primary stone is fragmented with lithotripsy. Many urologists choose to \"dust\" the stone by breaking it into tiny fragments \< 1 - 2 mm in size with the assumption that stone fragments of such a small size will pass spontaneously after surgery. This can theoretically decrease operative times and lower risk of ureteral trauma by minimizing repetitive introduction and removal of the ureteroscope. Others choose to actively extract each possible stone fragment during the procedure thereby increasing the immediate stone-free outcome.
Active extraction however typically increases costs as it requires use of a basket or grasper and ureteral access sheath. To date, only one prospective, randomized study has addressed the practice of active extraction vs spontaneous passage, the results of which suggested higher rates of residual stone fragments, hospital readmissions and need for ancillary procedures when stones were not actively extracted (8). This study was criticized for not following a standardized operative protocol and not reporting several important outcomes including stone composition. Additionally, this study used semirigid ureteroscopy, specifically addressed ureteral rather than intrarenal stones, and did not follow a "dusting" protocol assuring minimal size of residual fragments.
Complete eradication of stone fragments is one of the primary outcomes of ureteroscopy as residual renal stone fragments after ureteroscopy have been shown to lead to a subsequent stone event in approximately 20% of cases(9). However, maximizing eradication of stone fragments must not come at the expense of the patient. For this reason it is important to consider the operative variables associated with the different techniques employed to clear stone during such procedures.
For example, an average of nearly three times as much laser energy was used to fragment the stone into tiny pieces compared to active extraction (8). Conversely, active extraction of stone fragments requires introducing and removing the ureteroscope through the ureter a greater number of times in order to facilitate stone removal; which generally requires use of a ureteral access sheath, a treatment with its own associated risk.(10). The short term and long term differences resulting from use of these techniques is currently unknown.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Fragments basketed | – | –"Active" extraction is whereby the ureteroscope is passed back and forth into the kidney to remove all visible stone fragments. |
| Fragments dusted | – | –"Dusting" is whereby the stones are broken into tiny fragments or "dust" with the intention that achieving such a small stone size will allow the stones to pass spontaneously. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients will be identified at clinic visit or hospital admission
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Radiopaque renal stones above the level of the ureteropelvic junction
- Kidney stones must range up to 20 mm in size or in the case of multiple stones the conglomerate diameter (additive maximal diameter of all stones on axial imaging of computed tomography) up to 20 mm is required for inclusion
- Patient must be a suitable operative candidate for flexible ureteroscopy
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients who have had prior ipsilateral upper urinary tract reconstructive procedures or history of ipsilateral ureteral stricture
- Patients who have undergone prior radiotherapy to the abdomen or pelvis and those who have a neurogenic bladder or spinal cord injury
- Pregnant subjects
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Stone-free rate
Time frame: 4-6 weeks post-operatively
To assess for stone-free rate using K.U.B. (kidney-ureter-bladder) plain radiograph and renal ultrasound. If there is a discrepancy in follow up imaging between the presence of residual stones or fragments between the KUB and renal ultrasound, the KUB will be considered the reference standard for small fragments less than 4mm unless the stone composition is uric acid. If fragments 5 mm or larger exist it will be up to the discretion of the surgeon to order a CT to better delineate the presence of residual stones and their impact on the clinical management of that patient.
2 secondary outcomes
Stone recurrence rate
Time frame: 12 months post operatively
Retreatment rate
Time frame: 12 months post operatively
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 18 Sep 2018.
Related trials for Kidney Calculi
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.
Mitchell Humphreys, MD principal investigator
Mayo Clinic
9 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Kidney Calculi and Kidney Stones, run by Mayo Clinic at 9 sites in 2 countries.
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 18 Sep 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 9 sites in United States, Canada. 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 rate (time frame: 4-6 weeks post-operatively). 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 18 Sep 2018; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.