Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Nadya E. York, Michael S. Borofsky, Ben H. Chew, Casey A. Dauw, Ryan F. Paterson, John D. Denstedt, Hassan Razvi, Robert B. Nadler, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Glenn M. Preminger, Stephen Y. Nakada, Amy Krambeck, Nicole L. Miller, Colin Terry, Lori D. Rawlings, James E. Lingeman

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual-probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS-II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices. Results: Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. Two hundred one patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select group, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8 mm2 vs 577.5 mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9 mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups, respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p = 0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone-free rates, were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones >2 cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1145-1151
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume31
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Nephrostomy
Lithotripsy
Randomized Controlled Trials
Ultrasonics
Equipment and Supplies
Protective Devices
Random Allocation
North America

Keywords

  • Kidney calculi
  • Lithotripsy
  • Nephrolithiasis
  • Randomized controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

York, N. E., Borofsky, M. S., Chew, B. H., Dauw, C. A., Paterson, R. F., Denstedt, J. D., ... Lingeman, J. E. (2017). Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Journal of Endourology, 31(11), 1145-1151. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0436

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. / York, Nadya E.; Borofsky, Michael S.; Chew, Ben H.; Dauw, Casey A.; Paterson, Ryan F.; Denstedt, John D.; Razvi, Hassan; Nadler, Robert B.; Humphreys, Mitchell R.; Preminger, Glenn M.; Nakada, Stephen Y.; Krambeck, Amy; Miller, Nicole L.; Terry, Colin; Rawlings, Lori D.; Lingeman, James E.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 31, No. 11, 01.11.2017, p. 1145-1151.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

York, NE, Borofsky, MS, Chew, BH, Dauw, CA, Paterson, RF, Denstedt, JD, Razvi, H, Nadler, RB, Humphreys, MR, Preminger, GM, Nakada, SY, Krambeck, A, Miller, NL, Terry, C, Rawlings, LD & Lingeman, JE 2017, 'Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy', Journal of Endourology, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1145-1151. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0436
York, Nadya E. ; Borofsky, Michael S. ; Chew, Ben H. ; Dauw, Casey A. ; Paterson, Ryan F. ; Denstedt, John D. ; Razvi, Hassan ; Nadler, Robert B. ; Humphreys, Mitchell R. ; Preminger, Glenn M. ; Nakada, Stephen Y. ; Krambeck, Amy ; Miller, Nicole L. ; Terry, Colin ; Rawlings, Lori D. ; Lingeman, James E. / Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. In: Journal of Endourology. 2017 ; Vol. 31, No. 11. pp. 1145-1151.
@article{00f82b1b60be47fd88369a5124b2b8f4,
title = "Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual-probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS-II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices. Results: Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. Two hundred one patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select group, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8 mm2 vs 577.5 mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9 mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups, respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p = 0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone-free rates, were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones >2 cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.",
keywords = "Kidney calculi, Lithotripsy, Nephrolithiasis, Randomized controlled trial",
author = "York, {Nadya E.} and Borofsky, {Michael S.} and Chew, {Ben H.} and Dauw, {Casey A.} and Paterson, {Ryan F.} and Denstedt, {John D.} and Hassan Razvi and Nadler, {Robert B.} and Humphreys, {Mitchell R.} and Preminger, {Glenn M.} and Nakada, {Stephen Y.} and Amy Krambeck and Miller, {Nicole L.} and Colin Terry and Rawlings, {Lori D.} and Lingeman, {James E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2017.0436",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "1145--1151",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

AU - York, Nadya E.

AU - Borofsky, Michael S.

AU - Chew, Ben H.

AU - Dauw, Casey A.

AU - Paterson, Ryan F.

AU - Denstedt, John D.

AU - Razvi, Hassan

AU - Nadler, Robert B.

AU - Humphreys, Mitchell R.

AU - Preminger, Glenn M.

AU - Nakada, Stephen Y.

AU - Krambeck, Amy

AU - Miller, Nicole L.

AU - Terry, Colin

AU - Rawlings, Lori D.

AU - Lingeman, James E.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual-probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS-II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices. Results: Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. Two hundred one patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select group, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8 mm2 vs 577.5 mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9 mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups, respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p = 0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone-free rates, were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones >2 cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.

AB - Purpose: To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual-probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS-II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices. Results: Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. Two hundred one patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select group, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8 mm2 vs 577.5 mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9 mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups, respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p = 0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone-free rates, were similar between the groups. Conclusions: The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones >2 cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.

KW - Kidney calculi

KW - Lithotripsy

KW - Nephrolithiasis

KW - Randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034668362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034668362&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2017.0436

DO - 10.1089/end.2017.0436

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28859485

AN - SCOPUS:85034668362

VL - 31

SP - 1145

EP - 1151

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 11

ER -