Kidney CalculiNCT02635048
Mini-PCNL Versus Standard-PCNL For The Management of 20-40 mm Size Kidney Stones
A study testing Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in people with Kidney Calculi, run by The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been considered as the first-line choice for the management of >20mm kidney stones. The traditional nephrostomy tract of PNL was dilated to 24-30F, which is referred to as "Standard-PCNL". Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Kidney Calculi
- What is being tested?
- Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,980 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2016to 20 Aug 2019
- 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 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients consent for percutaneous renal stone removal
- Age 18 to 70 years
- Normal renal function
- ASA score Ⅰ and Ⅱ
- Renal stones 20-40mm
Who cannot join
- Patients with solitary kidney.
- Uncorrected coagulopathy and active urinary tract infection (UTI)
- Morbid obese patients
- Patients who underwent transplant or urinary diversion.
- Congenital abnormalities.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University
Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510230
About this study
Official title: Efficacy and Safety of Mini-PCNL Versus Standard-PCNL For The Management of 20-40 mm Size Kidney Stones: A Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been considered as the first-line choice for the management of >20mm kidney stones. The traditional nephrostomy tract of PNL was dilated to 24-30F, which is referred to as "Standard-PCNL". Standard PNL has an ideal stones free rate (SFR), however, at the cost of severe morbidity. To decrease the disadvantages related to standard PNL, "mini-perc" or "mini-PCNL", 20F or less, was first introduced to pediatric procedure in 1997, and subsequently implemented in adults with the expectation of similar SFR and low morbidity in the past twenty years. Although abundant efforts have been done, whether mini-perc outweigh standard-PNL for the treatment of >20mm calculis in terms of efficiency and safety remains controversial.
To solve this problem, we performed this multicenter, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Read the detailed description
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mini-PCNL versus standard-PCNL for the management of 20-40 mm size kidney stones.Investigators plan to do a multicenter, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT). There are 20 hospitals included in this study, including The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Baoshan No.2 People's Hospital, The second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, People's Hospital of Nanhai District, Yichang Yiling Hospital, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Jining NO.1 People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, The General Hospital of Shenyang Military, Shanghai General Hospital, Qingyuan People's Hospital, The second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University, 181st hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, Jiangmen Hospital of Zhongshan University.
Each center performs more than 500 PNL procedures per year. Ethics committee approval was obtained at each site and informed consent was taken from each patient. The primary endpoint was the one-session SFR and the secondary endpoints included intraoperative and postoperative parameters.
This study will be started at January,2016 and ended at November ,2019. The SFR of sPNL and mPNL was assumed to be 83% and 89% respectively, based on the earlier data. -10% was considered as a non-inferiority margin. the type-1 error (α) was set to 0.05 and the power (1-β) to 0.8. Sampling ratio was 1. According to the formulas of 2-sample non-inferiority test comparing two proportions, the minimum sample size for each group was 923 using a power and sample size calculator (HyLown Consulting, Atlanta). Considering the patients lost to follow-up and consent withdrawals, the number was increased to 1000 patients in each group.
Randomization We used SPSS software to generate 2000 random numbers in a table with a ratio of 1:1 ("0" for sPNL and "1" for mPNL). A protocol-blinded coordinator revealed the assignment in sequence to the center once the consent was signed and surgery was scheduled. The number of included patients was not equally distributed among the centers.
Quality control A standard operating procedure (SOP) was made and approved by the principal investigator of each center. Routine monitoring visits to all centers were carried out every month.
Intravenous urography (IVU) and 2 mm non-contrasted CT were done in all patients. CT value was measured with a consistent software in each center. Patients had negative urine culture before treatment. Intravenous single dose of 1st/2nd-generation cephalosporin or ciprofloxacin was administered 30 mins before and after surgery as antibiotic prophylaxis.
All the endoscopic procedures were performed by only one designated experienced surgeon (≥100 procedures per year in both sPNL and mPNL) in each center. All the procedures were performed under general anesthesia and in the prone position. A 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was placed to the renal pelvis through a guide wire. The use of fluoroscopic or/and ultrasonic guidance was determined by the surgeons' preference. An 18-gauge needle was used for puncture. As shown in Fig. 1, the access tract was gradually dilated with fascial introducers (Reborn Medical®) up to 18F (mPNL) or 24F (sPNL). A peel-away sheath was used (Reborn Medical®). The stone was fragmented by pneumatic LithoClast®, or holmium laser with a 550-um laser fiber (Lumenis® and an energy setting of 30-50 W) or ultrasonic lithotripsy (EMS®, only sPNL group). The stone free status was routinely evaluated by fluoroscopy (radiopaque stone) or ultrasound (radio lucent stone). An immediate second-look or another puncture would be performed if needed. A 6 Fr double J stent was inserted for 4 weeks. A 16-18F silastic nephrostomy tube was placed and removed before discharge. Indication for tubeless/total tubeless: absence of major perforation of collecting system, bleeding and/or complete stone clearance.
K.U.B. (kidney-ureter-bladder) plain radiograph and renal ultrasound were used to evaluate the residual stones before discharge. If there was a discrepancy between the presence of residual stones between the KUB and renal ultrasound, a 2 mm non-contrast CT was ordered to better delineate the presence of residual stones and their impact on the clinical management. The status of residual stones was according to the reports assessed by two protocol-blinded radiologists. If the largest residual stone was larger than 6 mm, SWL, RIRS or URL would be recommended before removing double J stent. The one-session SFR (primary outcome) was determined at one month after removing double J stent and defined as either the absence of any residual stone fragments or the presence of clinically insignificant residual stone fragments (CIRFs), without any auxiliary procedures.
The hematocrit drop was measured at 8 am on postoperative day 1. The indications for transfusion was strictly monitored according to the guideline of Chinese Society of Blood Transfusion (hemoglobin less than 70g/l or a progressive decrease in hemoglobin after surgeries). Consideration of angiography and selective angio-embolization for patients with significant macroscopic hematuria in the urine as well as progressive decrease in hemoglobin or unstable hemodynamics. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used as a pain scale for quantification of postoperative pain at 24h after surgeries.14 VAS was evaluated by two protocol-blinded nurses. Patients with VAS greater than 5 were given nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Stone composition was analyzed using uniform instruments (Fourier Transform-Infrared Spectrometry, Thermo®) and method in all participated centers.
Data collection and definitions of parameters The characteristics of patients and clinical outcomes were recorded according to the pre-established case report form (CRF) . Surgical outcomes were predicted preoperatively according to the S·T·O·N·E nephrolithometry. The stone size was the largest diameter of a single stone or the summation of the largest diameters of multiple stones. Operation time was defined as the time from puncture to the placement of the nephrostomy tube or removing the access sheath in cases with tubeless or total tubeless. Septic shock was identified using the clinical criteria of persisting hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean mean artery pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg and having a serum lactate level ≥ 2 mmol/L (>18mg/dL) despite adequate fluid resuscitation.
Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20·0. Continuous variables were analyzed using Student's t-test to compare the two means. Categorical variables between groups were analyzed using the chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. Primary endpoints and some key secondary endpoints were analyzed in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) population. Odds ratio (OR) for sPNL compared with mPNL in categorical variables. Mean difference for sPNL compared with mPNL in continuous variables. P <0·05 was considered statistically significant.
- Conditions
- Kidney Calculi
- Being tested
- Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
- Keywords
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Kidney stones, Efficacy, Safety
- Medical subject headings
- Kidney Calculi
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Mini Percutaneous NephrolithotomyProcedure or surgery
patients undergo PNCL with 18Fr nephrostomy tract
Percutaneous NephrolithotomyProcedure or surgery
patients undergo PNCL with 24Fr nephrostomy tract
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Other | Patients in Group 1 undergo mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy Receives: Procedure: Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy |
| Group 2 | Other | Patients in Group 2 undergo percutaneous nephrolithotomy Receives: Procedure: Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Stone free rate (SFR)
2mm Non-contrast CT is obtained for all patients at 1 month after removing the pigtail stent to evaluate the final SFR. Stone-free status are defined as either the absence of any residual stone fragments or the presence of clinically insignificant residual stone fragments in the kidney which were defined as ≦ 4mm, asymptomatic, non-obstructive and non-infectious stone particles.
Measured: 1 month after removing the pigtail stent
Secondary outcomes (1)
Perioperative complications
Complication is defined as any adverse event occurred intraoperatively or ≤1 month postoperatively, including intraoperative bleeding, postoperative pain and so on.
Measured: intraoperatively or ≤ 1 month postoperatively
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Dec 2015 (estimated)
- Study start1 Jan 2016
- Primary completion1 Aug 2019
- Study completion20 Aug 2019
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 The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical 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
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,980 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Yunnan Baoshan Second People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Nanhai District People's Hospital, Yichang Yiling Hospital, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Shengjing Hospital, 181st hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Jiangmen Central Hospital, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Jining First People's Hospital
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Guohua Zeng, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University
- Investigators
- Guohua Zeng, PH.D & MD, Principal investigator, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02635048
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MRER(67)2015
- Status last verified
- Mar 2020
- First submitted
- 16 Dec 2015
- Last updated
- 5 Mar 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Mar 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy and Safety of Mini-PCNL Versus Standard-PCNL For The Management of 20-40 mm Size Kidney Stones: A Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02635048
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MRER(67)2015
- Conditions
- Kidney Calculi
- Keywords
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Kidney stones, Efficacy, Safety
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,980 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Yunnan Baoshan Second People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Nanhai District People's Hospital, Yichang Yiling Hospital, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Shengjing Hospital, 181st hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Jiangmen Central Hospital, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Jining First People's Hospital
- Study start
- 1 Jan 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Aug 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Aug 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Dec 2015 (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.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been considered as the first-line choice for the management of >20mm kidney stones. The traditional nephrostomy tract of PNL was dilated to 24-30F, which is referred to as "Standard-PCNL". Standard PNL has an ideal stones free rate (SFR), however, at the cost of severe morbidity. To decrease the disadvantages related to standard PNL, "mini-perc" or "mini-PCNL", 20F or less, was first introduced to pediatric procedure in 1997, and subsequently implemented in adults with the expectation of similar SFR and low morbidity in the past twenty years. Although abundant efforts have been done, whether mini-perc outweigh standard-PNL for the treatment of >20mm calculis in terms of efficiency and safety remains controversial.
To solve this problem, we performed this multicenter, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Detailed description
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mini-PCNL versus standard-PCNL for the management of 20-40 mm size kidney stones.Investigators plan to do a multicenter, parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT). There are 20 hospitals included in this study, including The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Baoshan No.2 People's Hospital, The second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, People's Hospital of Nanhai District, Yichang Yiling Hospital, Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Jining NO.1 People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, The General Hospital of Shenyang Military, Shanghai General Hospital, Qingyuan People's Hospital, The second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, ShengJing Hospital of China Medical University, 181st hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, China-Japan Union Hospital, Jilin University, Jiangmen Hospital of Zhongshan University.
Each center performs more than 500 PNL procedures per year. Ethics committee approval was obtained at each site and informed consent was taken from each patient. The primary endpoint was the one-session SFR and the secondary endpoints included intraoperative and postoperative parameters.
This study will be started at January,2016 and ended at November ,2019. The SFR of sPNL and mPNL was assumed to be 83% and 89% respectively, based on the earlier data. -10% was considered as a non-inferiority margin. the type-1 error (α) was set to 0.05 and the power (1-β) to 0.8. Sampling ratio was 1. According to the formulas of 2-sample non-inferiority test comparing two proportions, the minimum sample size for each group was 923 using a power and sample size calculator (HyLown Consulting, Atlanta). Considering the patients lost to follow-up and consent withdrawals, the number was increased to 1000 patients in each group.
Randomization We used SPSS software to generate 2000 random numbers in a table with a ratio of 1:1 ("0" for sPNL and "1" for mPNL). A protocol-blinded coordinator revealed the assignment in sequence to the center once the consent was signed and surgery was scheduled. The number of included patients was not equally distributed among the centers.
Quality control A standard operating procedure (SOP) was made and approved by the principal investigator of each center. Routine monitoring visits to all centers were carried out every month.
Intravenous urography (IVU) and 2 mm non-contrasted CT were done in all patients. CT value was measured with a consistent software in each center. Patients had negative urine culture before treatment. Intravenous single dose of 1st/2nd-generation cephalosporin or ciprofloxacin was administered 30 mins before and after surgery as antibiotic prophylaxis.
All the endoscopic procedures were performed by only one designated experienced surgeon (≥100 procedures per year in both sPNL and mPNL) in each center. All the procedures were performed under general anesthesia and in the prone position. A 5 Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was placed to the renal pelvis through a guide wire. The use of fluoroscopic or/and ultrasonic guidance was determined by the surgeons' preference. An 18-gauge needle was used for puncture. As shown in Fig. 1, the access tract was gradually dilated with fascial introducers (Reborn Medical®) up to 18F (mPNL) or 24F (sPNL). A peel-away sheath was used (Reborn Medical®). The stone was fragmented by pneumatic LithoClast®, or holmium laser with a 550-um laser fiber (Lumenis® and an energy setting of 30-50 W) or ultrasonic lithotripsy (EMS®, only sPNL group). The stone free status was routinely evaluated by fluoroscopy (radiopaque stone) or ultrasound (radio lucent stone). An immediate second-look or another puncture would be performed if needed. A 6 Fr double J stent was inserted for 4 weeks. A 16-18F silastic nephrostomy tube was placed and removed before discharge. Indication for tubeless/total tubeless: absence of major perforation of collecting system, bleeding and/or complete stone clearance.
K.U.B. (kidney-ureter-bladder) plain radiograph and renal ultrasound were used to evaluate the residual stones before discharge. If there was a discrepancy between the presence of residual stones between the KUB and renal ultrasound, a 2 mm non-contrast CT was ordered to better delineate the presence of residual stones and their impact on the clinical management. The status of residual stones was according to the reports assessed by two protocol-blinded radiologists. If the largest residual stone was larger than 6 mm, SWL, RIRS or URL would be recommended before removing double J stent. The one-session SFR (primary outcome) was determined at one month after removing double J stent and defined as either the absence of any residual stone fragments or the presence of clinically insignificant residual stone fragments (CIRFs), without any auxiliary procedures.
The hematocrit drop was measured at 8 am on postoperative day 1. The indications for transfusion was strictly monitored according to the guideline of Chinese Society of Blood Transfusion (hemoglobin less than 70g/l or a progressive decrease in hemoglobin after surgeries). Consideration of angiography and selective angio-embolization for patients with significant macroscopic hematuria in the urine as well as progressive decrease in hemoglobin or unstable hemodynamics. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used as a pain scale for quantification of postoperative pain at 24h after surgeries.14 VAS was evaluated by two protocol-blinded nurses. Patients with VAS greater than 5 were given nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Stone composition was analyzed using uniform instruments (Fourier Transform-Infrared Spectrometry, Thermo®) and method in all participated centers.
Data collection and definitions of parameters The characteristics of patients and clinical outcomes were recorded according to the pre-established case report form (CRF) . Surgical outcomes were predicted preoperatively according to the S·T·O·N·E nephrolithometry. The stone size was the largest diameter of a single stone or the summation of the largest diameters of multiple stones. Operation time was defined as the time from puncture to the placement of the nephrostomy tube or removing the access sheath in cases with tubeless or total tubeless. Septic shock was identified using the clinical criteria of persisting hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy to maintain mean mean artery pressure (MAP) ≥65 mmHg and having a serum lactate level ≥ 2 mmol/L (>18mg/dL) despite adequate fluid resuscitation.
Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20·0. Continuous variables were analyzed using Student's t-test to compare the two means. Categorical variables between groups were analyzed using the chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. Primary endpoints and some key secondary endpoints were analyzed in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) population. Odds ratio (OR) for sPNL compared with mPNL in categorical variables. Mean difference for sPNL compared with mPNL in continuous variables. P <0·05 was considered statistically significant.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Other | Procedure: Mini Percutaneous NephrolithotomyPatients in Group 1 undergo mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
| Group 2 | Other | Procedure: Percutaneous NephrolithotomyPatients in Group 2 undergo percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients consent for percutaneous renal stone removal
- Age 18 to 70 years
- Normal renal function
- ASA score Ⅰ and Ⅱ
- Renal stones 20-40mm
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients with solitary kidney.
- Uncorrected coagulopathy and active urinary tract infection (UTI)
- Morbid obese patients
- Patients who underwent transplant or urinary diversion.
- Congenital abnormalities.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomypatients undergo PNCL with 18Fr nephrostomy tract | Procedure or surgery | Group 1 |
| Percutaneous Nephrolithotomypatients undergo PNCL with 24Fr nephrostomy tract | Procedure or surgery | Group 2 |
Primary outcome
Stone free rate (SFR)
Time frame: 1 month after removing the pigtail stent
2mm Non-contrast CT is obtained for all patients at 1 month after removing the pigtail stent to evaluate the final SFR. Stone-free status are defined as either the absence of any residual stone fragments or the presence of clinically insignificant residual stone fragments in the kidney which were defined as ≦ 4mm, asymptomatic, non-obstructive and non-infectious stone particles.
1 secondary outcome
Perioperative complications
Time frame: intraoperatively or ≤ 1 month postoperatively
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 5 Mar 2020.
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.
Guohua Zeng, PH.D & MD principal investigator
The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical 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 Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in people with Kidney Calculi, run by The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University at 1 site in China.
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 5 inclusion and 5 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 5 Mar 2020. 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 China. 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 (SFR) (time frame: 1 month after removing the pigtail stent). 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 5 Mar 2020.