Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025
A novel small fragment removal system holds promise to improve stone extraction during lithotripsy.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe a novel small fragment removal system (SFRS) which is hypothesized to improve kidney stone fragment removal during laser lithotrypsy. The SFRS consists of three parts: a Syphon Ureteric Access Sheath (SUAS), a Dual Action Pump (DAP) and an Agitator. This clinical trial aims to assess the SFRS's impact on intra-renal pressure (IRP) and irrigant flow rate compared to a traditional UAS and its stone fragment removal capabilities. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this prospective single arm seamless Phase 1 and 2 clinical trial. The primary objective of Phase 1 was to evaluate the safety of the SFRS in terms of IRP changes. In Phase 2 we attempted to evaluate the device's efficacy in removing stone fragments. During standard laser lithotripsy, the DAP and Syphon UAS were compared to a conventional UAS in terms of irrigant flow and IRP at baseline and during fluid bolus administration. Additionally, the percentage of stone fragments removed using the SFRS with the Agitator introduced (in place of the fURS) was assessed.
resultsTwelve (n = 12) patients were enrolled. The SFRS showed lower baseline IRP - 20,8 vs. 24,6mmHg for the traditional UAS (p = 0,004). During fluid boluses the IRP was lower for the SFRS at 23,5 vs. 75,2mmHg (p = 0,0002). Greater irrigant flow was seen with the SFRS of 39,2 vs. 34,9mL/min (p = 0.002). Mean pre-op stone volume was 238mm
conclusionsThe novel SFRS holds clinical promise to improve patient safety by reducing IRP with a significant reduction in IRP during fluid bolus administration. It also has the potential to improve visibility via a significant increase in irrigant flow. Lastly, the SFRS was able to remove the overwhelming majority of stone fragments. The main limitation of the study is the small sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.