"Dusting" Versus "Basketing" - Treatment Of Intrarenal Stones
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).
|Study Design:||Observational Model: Cohort
Time Perspective: Prospective
|Official Title:||Ureteroscopic Treatment of Intrarenal Stones - A Comparative Analysis of "Dusting" Versus "Basketing" With Holmium Laser Lithotripsy|
- Stone-free rate [ Time Frame: 4-6 weeks post-operatively ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]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.
- Stone recurrence rate [ Time Frame: 12 months post operatively ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]Stone recurrence rate one year after surgery
- Retreatment rate [ Time Frame: 12 months post operatively ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]Evaluating the retreatment rate one year post operation
|Study Start Date:||April 2013|
|Estimated Study Completion Date:||April 2016|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date:||April 2016 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
"Active" extraction is whereby the ureteroscope is passed back and forth into the kidney to remove all visible stone fragments.
"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.
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.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01619735
|United States, Arizona|
|Scottsdale, Arizona, United States, 85259|
|Contact: Andre Watkins email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Mitchell R Humphreys, MD|
|United States, California|
|San Diego, California, United States, 92103|
|Contact: Roger Sur, MD 619-543-2628|
|Principal Investigator: Roger Sur, MD|
|United States, Maryland|
|James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute||Not yet recruiting|
|Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21287|
|Contact: Brian Matlaga, MD, MPH 410-502-7710 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Brian Matlaga, MD, MPH|
|United States, Massachusetts|
|Massachusetts General Hospital||Not yet recruiting|
|Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 02114|
|Contact: Brian Eisner, MD 617-726-2000 email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Brian Eisner, MD|
|United States, New Hampshire|
|Dartmouth University||Not yet recruiting|
|Hanover, New Hampshire, United States, 03755|
|Contact: Vernon M Pais, MD Vernon.M.Pais.Ju@hitchcock.org|
|Principal Investigator: Vernon M Pais, MD|
|United States, New York|
|New York, New York, United States, 10016|
|Contact: Ojas Shah, MD 646-825-6322 Ojas.Shah@nyumc.org|
|Contact: Laurie Mantor 646-825-6328 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Ojas Shah, MD|
|United States, North Carolina|
|Duke University||Not yet recruiting|
|Durham, North Carolina, United States, 27710|
|Contact: Michael Lipkin, MD 919-681-5506 email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Michael Lipkin, MD|
|United States, Ohio|
|Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44195|
|Contact: Carl Sarkissian firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Manoj Monga, MD, FACS|
|Ohio State University||Recruiting|
|Columbus, Ohio, United States, 43210|
|Contact: Andrea Inman 614-688-6658 email@example.com|
|Contact: Janet McGarr 614-366-1662 Janet.Mcgarr@osumc.edu|
|Principal Investigator: Bodo Knudsen, MD|
|United States, Tennessee|
|Vanderbilt University School of Medicine||Recruiting|
|Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37232|
|Contact: Nicole Miller, MD 615-322-5000 Nicole.miller@Vanderbilt.Edu|
|Contact: Ryan Pickens firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Nicole Miller, MD|
|Canada, British Columbia|
|University of British Columbia||Recruiting|
|Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada|
|Contact: Ben Chew, MD (604)875-4818 Ben.email@example.com|
|Contact: Olga Arsovska firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Ben Chew, MD|
|Principal Investigator:||Mitchell Humphreys, MD||Mayo Clinic|