[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"lithotripsy-laser\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:lithotripsy-laser":28},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,2,0,[8,47],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":22,"briefSummary":24,"conditions":25,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":36,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":37,"startDateStruct":40,"completionDateStruct":42,"leadSponsor":44,"locationsCount":4},"100643028","fragmentation-vs-dusting-with-fans-for-renal-stones-less-than-2cm-a-randomized-controlled-study-100643028",false,"NCT07639385","Fragmentation Vs Dusting With FANS for Renal Stones Less Than 2cm: A Randomized Controlled Study","Fragmentation Vs Dusting Using TFL With FANS for Renal Stones Less Than 2cm","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years\n* Renal stone(s) confirmed on non-contrast CT KUB\n* Total stone less than 2cm\n* Stone amenable to flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS)\n* FANS advanced beyond Pelvi-Ureteric Junction (PUJ)\n* Able and willing to provide written informed consent\n* Able to comply with follow-up schedule\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Active urinary tract infection (positive urine culture) at time of planned surgery\n* Anatomical anomalies precluding safe FURS (e.g., infundibular stenosis, severe calyceal diverticulum inaccessible to flexible scope)\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding\n* Prior ipsilateral renal surgery within 3 months of enrollment\n* Concurrent ureteral stone(s) requiring simultaneous treatment\n* Renal anomalies: horseshoe kidney, ectopic kidney\n* Sheathless procedure\n* Unable to comply with follow-up or provide consent\n* Participation in another interventional trial within 30 days","ALL","18 Years",{"count":19,"type":20},86,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[23],"NA","The use of FANS has changed the operative landscape of RIRS by allowing continuous active suction-assisted clearance of ablated stone material in real time. Use of fragmentation technique in FANS requires high-energy to reduce stone burden into small fragments, followed by active suction of residual fine material. Dusting with FANS, on the other hand, converts the entire stone volume into sub-millimetre particulate that is continuously suctioned away during lasing potentially offering a more streamlined workflow with potentially less energy usage, reduced mechanical stress on the ureteroscope working channel, and fewer scope withdrawals. The combination of TFL dusting with FANS-assisted real-time evacuation may produce stone-free outcomes equivalent or superior to fragmentation, while offering these additional operative efficiencies.\n\nWhether dusting using TFL with FANS is non-inferior or indeed superior to fragmentation using TFL with FANS in terms of stone-free rate at one month has not been evaluated in prospective randomised trial yet. This study aims to answer that specific question in patients with renal stone less than 2 cm.",[26,27,28,29],"Thulium Fiber Laser","Fans","Lithotripsy, Laser","Renal Stone",[31,32,33,34],"Dusting","Fragmentation","Thulium fiber laser","FANS","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-26",{"date":38,"type":39},"2026-06-30","ACTUAL",{"date":41,"type":20},"2026-08-01",{"date":43,"type":20},"2027-08-07",{"name":45,"class":46},"Bir Hospital","OTHER_GOV",{"id":48,"slug":49,"hasResults":11,"nctId":50,"briefTitle":51,"officialTitle":52,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":53,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":54,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":21,"phases":56,"briefSummary":57,"conditions":58,"keywords":61,"overallStatus":71,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":72,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":73,"startDateStruct":75,"completionDateStruct":77,"leadSponsor":79,"locationsCount":82},"100552180","comparison-between-ureterorenoscopy-with-lithotripsy-alone-versus-combination-with-hydrogel-for-kidney-stone-removal-100552180","NCT06469736","Comparison Between Ureterorenoscopy With Lithotripsy Alone Versus Combination With Hydrogel for Kidney Stone Removal","Standard of Care Ureterorenoscopy With Lithotripsy Versus in Combination With the Hydrogel Method for Kidney Stone Removal: An Open, Randomized, Monocentric Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Male or female subjects aged ≥ 18 years\n* Evidence of nephrolithiasis on presentation of a preoperative computer tomography (CT) scan not older than 6 months\n* Minimum size of the kidney stones defined as \\>10mm in the longest axis in the preoperative CT.\n* Ability to read, write and speak German\n* Women of childbearing age must have a negative serum pregnancy test at the start of the study.\n* Submission of a personally signed and dated informed consent form stating that the subject has been informed of all relevant aspects of the study prior to any trial-related activity and that all information has been understood\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Participation in another clinical trial for kidney stone removal in the last 6 months\n* Subjects with gastrointestinal cancer who have not been in remission for at least 2 years\n* Subjects with a single kidney, horseshoe kidney or other anatomical abnormalities that may increase the risk of surgery for the subject\n* Subjects with untreated ureteral stenosis or renal stenosis and narrow ureteropelvic junction\u002Fureterovesical junction\n* Subjects with known impaired renal function from stage IV or known dialysis\n* Subjects with chronic hydronephrosis not associated with nephrolithiasis\n* Subjects with the following known or suspected diseases: Coagulation disorders, untreated urinary tract infections, renal disease sepsis and marked prostatic hyperplasia\n* Subjects with any other disease or condition that, in the opinion of the investigator, could interfere with the purpose of the study (e.g. bleeding that restricts vision in the kidney, problems in the renal tubular system)\n* Breastfeeding or pregnant women\n* Subjects who may be part of a vulnerable group (e.g. prisoners or developmentally delayed adults)",{"count":55,"type":20},120,[23],"The incidence of kidney stones (urolithiasis) has surged in both developing and developed countries, affecting approximately 15% of the global population. From 2010 to 2019, diagnoses of kidney and ureteral stones rose by 8% in Germany, 26% in France, and 15% in England. Correspondingly, the number of surgical stone removal procedures increased by 3%, 38%, and 18%, respectively. Common treatments include extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) with lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).\n\nURS, depending on stone size, has become a preferred method due to advancements in intraoperative imaging and laser technology. Despite these improvements, small fragments often remain post-intervention, leading to recurrent stones. Complete removal of all fragments is crucial to significantly reduce recurrence rates. Current literature suggests a high recurrence rate with residual fragments, impacting healthcare costs and patient quality of life.\n\nA key objective in endourological research is optimizing the stone clearance rate. Techniques like coagulum lithotomy and the autologous blood clot technique have been developed to enhance residual stone removal after laser fragmentation. These methods benefit selected patients but are not widely adopted due to complications such as reduced intraoperative visibility and long coagulum formation times.\n\nRecently, a two-component hydrogel system called mediNiK® (Purenum GmbH, Germany) was developed. This biocompatible gel can be applied through an endoscope after stone fragmentation and large fragment retrieval to embed smaller fragments and dust, forming a removable conglomerate. MediNiK® has demonstrated effectiveness in embedding and removing stone residues and is already in clinical use in Europe, showing potential for optimizing stone removal.\n\nA multicenter study has assessed the safety and tolerability of mediNiK® in standard URS (Open, randomized, multicentre study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and performance of mediNiK® compared to standard treatment in kidney stone removal - DRKS00030532). Results indicate the gel is safe and tolerable. However, further data from larger cohorts and comparisons with conventional URS are necessary before widespread adoption of mediNiK®.",[59,28,60],"Nephrolithiasis","Ureteroscopy",[62,63,64,65,66,67,31,68,69,70],"Hydrogel","MediNiK","Hydrogel methode","Stone Free Rate","Zero Residual Fragments","URS","Stone free","Thulium","Kidneystones","RECRUITING","2025-09-02",{"date":74,"type":39},"2025-09-09",{"date":76,"type":39},"2024-07-01",{"date":78,"type":20},"2026-07-30",{"name":80,"class":81},"Technical University of Munich","OTHER",1]