[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"renal-calculi\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:renal-calculi":26},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,18,0,[8,50,82,93,116,140,169,200,229,255,279,302,321,346,371,396,425,457],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":18,"targetDuration":21,"studyType":22,"phases":4,"briefSummary":23,"conditions":24,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":38,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":39,"startDateStruct":42,"completionDateStruct":44,"leadSponsor":46,"locationsCount":49},"100053645","stone-and-laser-therapies-post-market-study-salt-100053645",false,"NCT06982235","Stone and Laser Therapies Post-Market Study (SALT)","Stone and Laser Therapies Post-Market Study","SALT","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nFor urinary tract procedure cohort:\n\n1. Subject intends to undergo diagnostic and\u002For therapeutic urinary tract procedure with qualified BSC device(s)\n2. Subject is willing and able to complete all follow-up visits\n\nFor BPH cohort:\n\n1. Subject is ≥ 40 years of age\n2. Subject with a diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with lower urinary tract symptoms\n3. Subject intends to undergo BPH treatment with qualified BSC device(s)\n4. Subject is willing and able to complete all follow-up visits\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nFor urinary tract procedure cohort:\n\n1. Subject requires simultaneous surgical treatment for BPH\n2. Unwilling or unable to provide consent\n3. Any other condition which, in the opinion of the investigator, precludes study participation (e.g., history of medical non-compliance, etc.)\n\nFor BPH cohort:\n\n1. Subject requires simultaneous upper urinary calculi lithotripsy procedure (not applicable to bladder calculi)\n2. Unwilling or unable to provide consent\n3. Any other condition which, in the opinion of the investigator, precludes study participation (e.g., history of medical non-compliance, etc.)","ALL",{"count":19,"type":20},238,"ESTIMATED","12 Months","OBSERVATIONAL","The objective of the SALT Study is to obtain post-market safety and device performance data for Boston Scientific's Stone and BPH study devices used during a diagnostic and\u002For therapeutic urinary tract procedure (e.g., transurethral or percutaneous access routes) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) treatment.",[25,26,27,28,29],"Benign Prostate Hypertrophy(BPH)","Renal Calculi","Ureteral Stones, Kidney Stones","Calculi, Urinary","Urinary Tract Procedure",[31,32,33,26,34,35,36,29],"BPH","Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia","Lithotripsy","Renal Calculus","Boston Scientific","Kidney Stone","RECRUITING","2026-07-10",{"date":40,"type":41},"2026-07-13","ACTUAL",{"date":43,"type":41},"2025-06-30",{"date":45,"type":20},"2029-02",{"name":47,"class":48},"Boston Scientific Corporation","INDUSTRY",5,{"id":51,"slug":52,"hasResults":11,"nctId":53,"briefTitle":54,"officialTitle":55,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":56,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":58,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":61,"briefSummary":63,"conditions":64,"keywords":65,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":71,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":72,"startDateStruct":74,"completionDateStruct":76,"leadSponsor":78,"locationsCount":81},"100642011","normal-vs-low-tidal-volume-ventilation-in-retrograde-intrarenal-surgery-100642011","NCT07643324","Normal vs Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery","Comparison of Normal Ventilation and Low Tidal Volume Ventilation During Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) Using Video-Based Motion Index: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients aged 18 years or older\n* Patients scheduled for elective retrograde intrarenal surgery under general anesthesia\n* ASA physical status I-III\n* Patients who are able to read and understand the informed consent form\n* Patients who provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients younger than 18 years\n* Pregnancy\n* Emergency surgery\n* Severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe restrictive pulmonary disease, or preoperative hypercapnia\n* Severe uncontrolled cardiovascular disease\n* Active urinary tract infection, sepsis, or untreated infectious focus\n* Cases in whom the standardized ventilation protocol is difficult to apply because of morbid obesity\n* Patients scheduled for an additional major urological procedure in the same session\n* Cases in which an intraoperative video recording of sufficient quality cannot be obtained\n* Patients in whom the study protocol cannot be safely continued according to the investigator's clinical judgment","18 Years",{"count":59,"type":20},60,"INTERVENTIONAL",[62],"NA","Retrograde intrarenal surgery is commonly performed under general anesthesia for the treatment of renal stones. During the procedure, respiratory-related renal movement caused by positive-pressure ventilation may impair endoscopic image stability and reduce the efficiency of laser lithotripsy. This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the effects of normal ventilation and low tidal volume ventilation on intraoperative endoscopic image stability during RIRS using a video-based Motion Index.\n\nEligible adult patients scheduled for elective RIRS under general anesthesia will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either normal tidal volume ventilation or low tidal volume ventilation. A standardized 60-second intraoperative video segment in which the stone and\u002For active laser lithotripsy is visible will be analyzed by blinded assessors. The primary outcome is the mean Motion Index value calculated from sequential video frames. Secondary outcomes include additional Motion Index parameters, laser activation time, anesthesia and surgical duration, intraoperative respiratory and hemodynamic safety parameters, vasopressor requirement, complications, and stone-free status at routine follow-up.",[26],[66,67,68,69,70],"General anesthesia","Retrograde intrarenal surgery","Low tidal volume ventilation","Video-based image analysis","Endoscopic visualization quality","2026-06-19",{"date":73,"type":41},"2026-06-23",{"date":75,"type":41},"2026-04-29",{"date":77,"type":20},"2026-09-01",{"name":79,"class":80},"Hitit University","OTHER",1,{"id":83,"slug":4,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":84,"targetDuration":21,"studyType":22,"phases":4,"briefSummary":23,"conditions":85,"keywords":86,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":87,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":88,"startDateStruct":90,"completionDateStruct":91,"leadSponsor":92,"locationsCount":49},"100591577",{"count":19,"type":20},[25,26,27,28,29],[31,32,33,26,34,35,36,29],"2026-06-11",{"date":89,"type":41},"2026-06-12",{"date":43,"type":41},{"date":45,"type":20},{"name":47,"class":48},{"id":94,"slug":95,"hasResults":11,"nctId":96,"briefTitle":97,"officialTitle":98,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":99,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":100,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":102,"briefSummary":103,"conditions":104,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":106,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":107,"startDateStruct":109,"completionDateStruct":111,"leadSponsor":113,"locationsCount":115},"100352776","intraoperative-assessment-of-of-burst-wave-lithotripsy-bwl-100352776","NCT03873259","Intraoperative Assessment of of Burst Wave Lithotripsy (BWL)","Burst Wave Lithotripsy (BWL) for the Comminution of Urinary Tract Stones: Intraoperative Evaluation of Safety and Effectiveness","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Individuals presenting with at least one kidney stone apparent on CT\n* Individuals scheduled for clinical stone removal via ureteroscopy (URS)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Individuals under 18 years of age\n* Individuals belonging to a vulnerable group (pregnant, mentally disabled, prisoner, etc.)\n* Individuals with uncorrected bleeding disorders or coagulopathies\n* Individuals taking a clinically significant anticoagulant dose at the time of the procedure\n* Individuals with a calcified abdominal aortic aneurysm or calcified renal artery aneurysm\n* Individuals with a solitary kidney\n* Individuals with a comorbidity risks which, at the discretion of the physician, would make the patient a poor candidate for the BWL procedure",{"count":101,"type":20},40,[62],"Burst Wave Lithotripsy (BWL) is a novel method of urinary stone fragmentation that uses multi-cycle bursts of low amplitude ultrasound to induce stone fracture. This is in contrast to traditional extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), which employs a brief single compression\u002Ftensile cycle of high amplitude (shock) waves to achieve stone fracture. This is a single-arm feasibility study to test the ability of BWL to comminute (fragment) stones in humans.",[26,105],"Ureteral Calculi","2026-05-10",{"date":108,"type":41},"2026-05-13",{"date":110,"type":41},"2019-08-08",{"date":112,"type":20},"2028-04-30",{"name":114,"class":80},"University of Washington",2,{"id":117,"slug":118,"hasResults":11,"nctId":119,"briefTitle":120,"officialTitle":121,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":122,"healthyVolunteers":123,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":124,"enrollmentInfo":125,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":127,"briefSummary":128,"conditions":129,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":131,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":132,"startDateStruct":134,"completionDateStruct":136,"leadSponsor":138,"locationsCount":4},"100635940","fans-vs-diss-in-treatment-of-renal-stone--2cm-100635940","NCT07559214","FANS VS DISS in Treatment of Renal Stone \u003C 2cm","Flexible and Navigable Access Sheath (FANS) VS Direct in Scope Suction (DISS) in Treatment of Renal Stone > 2 cm , Controlled Randomized Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* All patients \\\u003C 18 years old presented with renal stone \\> 2cm whatever the site of the stone (pelvic or calyceal)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Inaccessibility to introduce access sheath or FURS\n* Previous Inserted JJ stent\n* Active UTI\n* Patients refuse to participate in the protocol",true,"60 Years",{"count":126,"type":20},100,[62],"To compare between FANS \\& DISS in :\n\n* Operative time\n* Stone free rate\n* Complications\n* Amount of fluid irrigation",[26],"NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-04-23",{"date":133,"type":41},"2026-04-30",{"date":135,"type":20},"2026-06",{"date":137,"type":20},"2027-09",{"name":139,"class":80},"Assiut University",{"id":141,"slug":142,"hasResults":11,"nctId":143,"briefTitle":144,"officialTitle":145,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":146,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":147,"maxAge":148,"enrollmentInfo":149,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":151,"briefSummary":152,"conditions":153,"keywords":156,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":163,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":164,"startDateStruct":165,"completionDateStruct":166,"leadSponsor":167,"locationsCount":81},"100634099","effect-of-complete-suction-induced-collapse-of-the-renal-collecting-system-at-the-end-of-rirs-on-early-postoperative-outcomes-100634099","NCT07535281","Effect of Complete Suction-Induced Collapse of the Renal Collecting System at the End of RIRS on Early Postoperative Outcomes","Effect of Complete Suction-Induced Collapse of the Renal Collecting System at the End of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery on Early Postoperative Outcomes: A Prospective Randomized Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 20 to 80 years.\n* Patients diagnosed with kidney stones and scheduled for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).\n* Patients who have voluntarily signed the written informed consent form\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Participation in another clinical trial (drug or device) within 1 month prior to enrollment.\n* Congenital abnormalities of the urinary or reproductive system.\n* Presence of a pre-placed ureteral stent (pre-stenting) at the time of surgery.\n* Solitary kidney.\n* Uncontrolled urinary tract infection.\n* History of ureteral reconstruction on the affected side.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Uncorrectable bleeding diathesis or ongoing therapeutic anticoagulation therapy.\n* Contraindications to general anesthesia.\n* Other conditions that the investigator deems inappropriate for participation in the study.","20 Years","80 Years",{"count":150,"type":20},90,[62],"The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether actively suctioning the renal collecting system to induce a \"collapse\" state at the end of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can reduce postoperative pain and infection in patients with kidney stones. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group (suction-induced collapse) or the control group (standard drainage). The study aims to determine if this simple surgical modification can improve early recovery outcomes and patient satisfaction.",[154,155,26],"Kidney Stones","Nephrolithiasis",[157,158,159,160,161,162],"retrograde intrarenal surgery","ureteral access sheath","suction","postoperative pain","infectious complications","renal collecting system","2026-04-20",{"date":131,"type":41},{"date":163,"type":41},{"date":137,"type":20},{"name":168,"class":80},"Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital",{"id":170,"slug":171,"hasResults":11,"nctId":172,"briefTitle":173,"officialTitle":174,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":175,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":124,"enrollmentInfo":176,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":178,"briefSummary":179,"conditions":180,"keywords":181,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":192,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":193,"startDateStruct":195,"completionDateStruct":196,"leadSponsor":198,"locationsCount":81},"100632657","diss-vs-fans-in-suction-assisted-rirs-for-medium-sized-renal-stones-100632657","NCT07516535","DISS vs FANS in Suction-Assisted RIRS for Medium-Sized Renal Stones","The Impact of Suction-Assisted RIRS (DISS Versus FANS) on Postoperative Infection Rate and Stone-Free Rate After Treatment of Medium Sized Renal Stones","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 to 60 years\n* Radiologically confirmed renal stones measuring 2 to 3 centimeters\n* Eligible for retrograde intrarenal surgery\n* Normal renal function as evidenced by normal serum creatinine\n* Able and willing to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy or lactation\n* Active urinary tract infection at the time of enrollment\n* Bleeding disorders or coagulopathies that contraindicate surgical intervention\n* Anatomical malformations affecting the urinary tract\n* Solitary kidney\n* Inability or unwillingness to provide informed consent",{"count":177,"type":20},126,[62],"Kidney stones are a common health problem and may recur frequently, which can affect quality of life and kidney function. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a minimally invasive treatment used for renal stones, but treatment of medium-sized stones may be associated with longer operative time, impaired visibility during surgery, residual stone fragments, and postoperative infectious complications caused by increased intrarenal pressure.\n\nSuction-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) techniques have been developed to improve surgical efficiency and safety by facilitating continuous removal of stone fragments and helping control intrarenal pressure. Two commonly used suction-assisted approaches are direct in-scope suction (DISS) and flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath (FANS). However, there is limited prospective randomized evidence directly comparing these two techniques.\n\nThis randomized prospective clinical study aims to compare direct in-scope suction (DISS) versus flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath (FANS) in adult patients with medium-sized renal stones measuring 2 to 3 cm who are undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two suction-assisted techniques. The study will evaluate whether flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath (FANS) provides better outcomes than direct in-scope suction (DISS) in terms of stone-free rate and postoperative infection rate.\n\nThe primary outcome is stone-free status assessed by postoperative imaging. Secondary outcomes include operative time, intraoperative visibility, and postoperative complications, particularly infection and urosepsis. The study hypothesis is that suction-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) using the flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath (FANS) technique will result in a higher stone-free rate and a lower postoperative infection rate compared with direct in-scope suction (DISS) in the management of medium-sized renal stones.",[154,155,26],[182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191],"Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery","Suction-Assisted Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery","Medium-Sized Renal Stones","Stone-Free Rate","Postoperative Infection","Urosepsis","Flexible Ureteroscopy","Holmium Laser Lithotripsy","Ureteric Access Sheath","Intrarenal Pressure","2026-04-01",{"date":194,"type":41},"2026-04-08",{"date":133,"type":20},{"date":197,"type":20},"2027-04-30",{"name":199,"class":80},"Ain Shams University",{"id":201,"slug":202,"hasResults":11,"nctId":203,"briefTitle":204,"officialTitle":205,"acronym":206,"eligibilityCriteria":207,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":208,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":210,"briefSummary":211,"conditions":212,"keywords":213,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":220,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":221,"startDateStruct":223,"completionDateStruct":225,"leadSponsor":227,"locationsCount":81},"100628555","fans-vs-standard-ureteral-access-sheath-in-furs-100628555","NCT07463157","FANS vs Standard Ureteral Access Sheath in fURS","Comparative Study on the Efficacy of the Ureteral Access Sheath With Integrated Suction FANS Versus the Standard Sheath in Patients With Renal Calculi Undergoing Ureterorenoscopy and Laser Lithotripsy: a Prospective, Randomized, Interventional, Single-center Study","CLEAR-URS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Participant is willing and able to provide written informed consent before any study-specific procedures are performed.\n2. Male or female, aged 18 years or older.\n3. Diagnosed with renal calculi ≥5 mm in diameter, confirmed by imaging, and eligible for fURS with laser lithotripsy according to European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines.\n4. In stable general health and fit for elective endoscopic surgery under general anesthesia.\n5. Willing and able to comply with all study-related procedures, including follow-up imaging and clinical assessments.\n\n   \\-\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Solitary kidney (monorenal patients).\n2. Untreated positive urine culture or ongoing urinary tract infection not resolved with appropriate antibiotic therapy prior to surgery.\n3. Known anatomical abnormalities of the urinary tract that may interfere with ureteroscopic access or device placement (e.g., ureteral stricture, congenital malformations).\n4. Pregnancy or breastfeeding at the time of enrollment or planning pregnancy during the study period. In all female patients, a Gravindex test is performed on the day of admission; contraceptive measures are not required\n5. Concomitant ureteral stone\n6. Ureteral stenosis\n7. Known allergy or hypersensitivity to materials used in the investigational or control ureteral access sheath.\n8. Any severe comorbid condition (e.g., uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, severe coagulopathy, active malignancy) that in the opinion of the investigator would interfere with study participation or increase procedural risk.\n9. Any psychological, cognitive, or social condition that may limit the ability to provide informed consent or comply with follow-up procedures.",{"count":209,"type":20},134,[62],"This is a prospective, interventional single blinded, randomized, single-center study designed to compare the efficacy of a ureteral access sheath with integrated suction (FANS) versus a standard ureteral access sheath (UAS) in patients undergoing ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy for renal stones. The hypothesis is that the use of the FANS device improves stone-free rates and reduces postoperative infectious complications compared to the standard sheath.",[26],[214,215,216,217,218,219],"Renal calculi","Kidney stones","Ureterorenoscopy","Laser lithotripsy","Ureteral access sheath","FANS device","2026-03-10",{"date":222,"type":41},"2026-03-12",{"date":224,"type":20},"2026-03-15",{"date":226,"type":20},"2029-01",{"name":228,"class":80},"IRCCS San Raffaele",{"id":230,"slug":231,"hasResults":11,"nctId":232,"briefTitle":233,"officialTitle":234,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":235,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":236,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":237,"briefSummary":238,"conditions":239,"keywords":241,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":247,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":248,"startDateStruct":250,"completionDateStruct":251,"leadSponsor":253,"locationsCount":4},"100628157","erector-spinae-plane-block-for-percutaneous-nephrolithotomy-100628157","NCT07457983","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy","Perioperative Efficacy of Erector Spinae Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II.\n* Scheduled for elective percutaneous nephrolithotomy under general anesthesia.\n* Able to understand the study procedures and provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\\u003C 18 years.\n* ASA physical status III-IV.\n* Refusal to participate in the study.\n* Known allergy or contraindication to local anesthetics (bupivacaine), opioids, or study medications.\n* Coagulopathy or anticoagulant therapy contraindicating regional block.\n* Infection at the injection site.\n* Severe psychiatric or cognitive disorder precluding reliable pain assessment or questionnaire completion.",{"count":59,"type":20},[62],"Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is an effective standard urological procedure for the fragmentation and removal of large renal calculi. Although PCNL is performed as a minimally invasive technique, dilation of the renal capsule and parenchymal tract, as well as peritubular distension caused by the nephrostomy tube, may result in severe postoperative pain. Various analgesic strategies have been described in the literature for postoperative pain management following PCNL. These include systemic opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and several regional analgesia techniques. However, due to their adverse effect profiles, opioids and NSAIDs are not ideal options, particularly in patients with renal dysfunction. Regional techniques that have been utilized include local infiltration, intercostal nerve blocks, paravertebral blocks, and epidural analgesia.\n\nThe kidney is primarily innervated between the T10 and L1 segments, whereas the ureter receives innervation from T10 to L2. Based on this anatomical knowledge, unilateral regional blockade between T10 and L2 can provide adequate analgesia for PCNL procedures. Thoracic paravertebral block was previously a commonly preferred technique; however, it may be associated with complications such as intravascular injection, unintended epidural or intrathecal spread, and pneumothorax during its performance. In recent years, the number of reports describing the use of the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) as part of multimodal anesthesia for postoperative analgesia has increased. In ESPB, local anesthetic is injected into the interfascial plane between the transverse process of the vertebra and the erector spinae muscles, and has been reported to spread to multiple paravertebral spaces. ESPB is considered a peri-paravertebral block that can affect both visceral and somatic pain pathways.\n\nThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption, postoperative pain scores, and quality of recovery in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy.",[240,155,26],"Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL)",[242,243,244,245,246],"Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy","Erector spinae plane block","Opioid consumption","Numerical pain scores (NRS)","Recovery quality (QoR-15T)","2026-03-09",{"date":249,"type":41},"2026-03-11",{"date":192,"type":20},{"date":252,"type":20},"2026-06-01",{"name":254,"class":80},"Fadime Tosun",{"id":256,"slug":257,"hasResults":11,"nctId":258,"briefTitle":259,"officialTitle":260,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":261,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":262,"enrollmentInfo":263,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":264,"briefSummary":265,"conditions":266,"keywords":267,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":270,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":271,"startDateStruct":273,"completionDateStruct":275,"leadSponsor":277,"locationsCount":81},"100619264","using-retrograde-intrarenal-surgery-for-managing-staghorn-renal-stones-100619264","NCT07342361","Using Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Managing Staghorn Renal Stones.","Using Bendable Tip-suction Ureteral Access Sheath Compared to Conventional Sheath in Managing Renal Staghorn Stones A Randomized Prospective Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients of both sexes.\n* Patient has a staghorn renal stone (complete or partial staghorn).\n* Normal renal function tests.\n* Congenital renal anomalies as horseshoe, pelvic or mal-rotated kidneys.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Abnormal coagulation profile.\n* Active or untreated urinary tract infection.\n* Age under 18 years or above 70 years.\n* Patient has a staghorn stone associated with other pathology which requires additional intervention, as ureteral stricture or ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).\n* Pregnancy.","70 Years",{"count":126,"type":20},[62],"This prospective, randomized study is comparing the safety and efficacy of using two types of ureteral access sheaths in managing staghorn renal stones by retrograde intrarenal surgery.",[26],[268,157,218,269],"staghorn calculi","Suction","2026-01-30",{"date":272,"type":41},"2026-02-03",{"date":274,"type":41},"2026-01-20",{"date":276,"type":20},"2026-12-01",{"name":278,"class":80},"Helwan University",{"id":280,"slug":281,"hasResults":11,"nctId":282,"briefTitle":283,"officialTitle":284,"acronym":285,"eligibilityCriteria":286,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":124,"enrollmentInfo":287,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":289,"briefSummary":290,"conditions":291,"keywords":292,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":296,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":297,"startDateStruct":299,"completionDateStruct":300,"leadSponsor":301,"locationsCount":81},"100620648","comparison-between-different-types-of-flexible-ureteroscopes-100620648","NCT07360353","Comparison Between Different Types of Flexible Ureteroscopes","A Comparative Study of Performance and Cost-effectiveness of Three Different Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes in the Management of Renal Stones: A Randomized Clinical Trial","FURS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18 to 60 years.\n* Presence of renal stones measuring less than 20 millimeters (mm).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Renal stones larger than 20 millimeters (mm).\n* Uncontrolled bleeding disorders or coagulopathies.\n* Active urinary tract infection.\n* Renal failure.\n* Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hepatic dysfunction.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Abnormal urinary tract anatomy or known ureteric stricture.\n* History of previous open ureteric surgery.",{"count":288,"type":20},180,[62],"The current study aims to compare the performance of three distinct single-use digital flexible ureteroscope types in terms of cost-effectiveness, postoperative complications, operating time, and stone-free rates (SFRs).",[26,155],[293,294,295],"Flexible ureteroscopy","Single-use flexible ureteroscope","Renal stones","2026-01-25",{"date":298,"type":41},"2026-01-27",{"date":296,"type":41},{"date":77,"type":20},{"name":199,"class":80},{"id":303,"slug":304,"hasResults":11,"nctId":305,"briefTitle":306,"officialTitle":307,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":308,"healthyVolunteers":123,"sex":17,"minAge":4,"maxAge":148,"enrollmentInfo":309,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":310,"briefSummary":311,"conditions":312,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":313,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":314,"startDateStruct":316,"completionDateStruct":317,"leadSponsor":319,"locationsCount":81},"100618639","energy-ramping-versus-fixed-dose-eswl-100618639","NCT07334236","Energy Ramping Versus Fixed Dose ESWL","Energy Ramping Versus Fixed Dose ESWL on Stone-Free Rate (Comparative Study)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults ≥18 years.\n* Radiopaque renal or proximal\u002Fmid ureteral stone ≤20 mm.\n* eGFR ≥60 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73 m².\n* Fit for ESWL.\n* Able to give informed consent and complete follow up.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* • Pregnancy.\n\n  * Active, untreated UTI.\n  * Uncorrected bleeding disorder or anticoagulation that cannot be stopped.\n  * Prior ipsilateral renal surgery.\n  * Non radio-opaque stone without reliable imaging.\n  * Inability to tolerate ESWL or required anesthesia.",{"count":126,"type":20},[62],"This clinical trial compares two techniques of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) - energy ramping versus fixed dose - in adult patients with renal stones. The study aims to evaluate stone-free rates, retreatment needs, and safety outcomes across multiple clinical sites in Egypt.",[26],"2026-01-03",{"date":315,"type":41},"2026-01-12",{"date":313,"type":20},{"date":318,"type":20},"2026-11-01",{"name":320,"class":80},"mohammed Abdelhafez",{"id":322,"slug":323,"hasResults":11,"nctId":324,"briefTitle":325,"officialTitle":326,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":327,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":148,"enrollmentInfo":328,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":330,"briefSummary":331,"conditions":332,"keywords":333,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":338,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":339,"startDateStruct":341,"completionDateStruct":343,"leadSponsor":344,"locationsCount":81},"100616850","comparison-of-lithotomy-versus-lateral-position-in-retrograde-intrarenal-surgery-for-lower-calyceal-stones-less-than-2-cm-100616850","NCT07310966","Comparison of Lithotomy Versus Lateral Position in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Calyceal Stones Less Than 2 cm","Comparison of Lithotomy Versus Lateral Position in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Calyceal Stones Less Than 2 cm: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged ≥18 years.\n* Single or multiple lower calyceal renal stones with stone size \\\u003C2 cm confirmed by NCCT.\n* Negative urine culture.\n* Presented cases.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Multiple stones involving renal pelvis or other calyces.\n* Anatomical anomalies affecting ureteroscope access (horseshoe kidney, malrotation, ureteral strictures).\n* Pregnancy.\n* Prior ipsilateral renal surgery.",{"count":329,"type":20},70,[62],"Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is an established minimally invasive treatment for renal stones, particularly for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm, offering acceptable stone-free rates with low morbidity.\n\nHowever, stone clearance in the lower calyx remains technically challenging due to unfavorable anatomy, limited scope deflection, and gravity-dependent fragment retention. Patient positioning during RIRS has been suggested as a modifiable factor that may influence endoscopic access, stone relocation, and surgical ergonomics.\n\nThe lithotomy position is conventionally used during RIRS, while the lateral position has been proposed to facilitate stone migration and improve lower calyceal access through gravitational assistance. Existing studies comparing patient positioning during RIRS are limited, with most evidence derived from retrospective analyses or non-randomized designs.\n\nTherefore, this randomized controlled trial aims to compare lithotomy versus lateral positioning during RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm in terms of operative and clinical outcomes.",[26],[334,335,336,285,337],"lithotomy position","lateral position","lower calyx","RIRS","2025-12-16",{"date":340,"type":41},"2025-12-30",{"date":342,"type":20},"2026-01-01",{"date":252,"type":20},{"name":345,"class":80},"Menoufia University",{"id":347,"slug":348,"hasResults":11,"nctId":349,"briefTitle":350,"officialTitle":351,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":352,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":353,"enrollmentInfo":354,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":356,"briefSummary":357,"conditions":358,"keywords":359,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":362,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":363,"startDateStruct":365,"completionDateStruct":367,"leadSponsor":369,"locationsCount":81},"100613085","comparison-of-extracorporeal-shock-wave-lithotripsy-versus-retrograde-intrarenal-surgery-in-the-management-of-renal-calculi-100613085","NCT07261995","Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Management of Renal Calculi","Comparison of Outcomes of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Management of Renal Calculi Measuring 1 to 2 Centimeters","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged between 18 and 65 years.\n* Patients diagnosed with a single renal calculus measuring between 1 cm and 2 cm, confirmed on imaging (ultrasound or non-contrast CT KUB).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Presence of multiple renal stones or bilateral renal stones.\n* Patients with anatomical abnormalities such as horseshoe kidney, ureteropelvic junction obstruction, or calyceal diverticulum based on medical history or radiological findings.\n* Active urinary tract infection at the time of intervention.\n* Pregnant women.\n* Patients with bleeding disorders or on anticoagulation therapy that cannot be safely stopped.\n* Patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR \\\u003C 30 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73 m²).\n* Patients with morbid obesity (BMI \\> 40 kg\u002Fm²).\n* Patients with solitary kidney.","65 Years",{"count":355,"type":20},98,[62],"This study is being carried out in patients with kidney stones measuring between 1 and 2 centimeters. Kidney stones are common in Pakistan and can cause severe pain, infection, and repeated hospital visits. Two commonly used treatments for stones of this size are extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). ESWL uses shock waves applied from outside the body to break the stone into small fragments that can pass in the urine. RIRS is a minimally invasive endoscopic procedure in which a thin flexible scope is passed through the urinary passage into the kidney and a laser is used to break the stone.\n\nAdult patients aged 18 to 65 years with a single kidney stone of 1-2 cm will be included. According to the urologist's clinical judgment and patient preference, individuals will undergo either ESWL (Group A) as a day-care shock wave procedure or RIRS (Group B) under general anesthesia using a laser. All patients will receive standard care before and after the procedure and will be followed for 28 days.\n\nThe study will compare how completely the stone is cleared (based on a CT scan), how long patients stay in hospital, how much pain they feel after the procedure, and whether they develop visible blood in the urine or signs of infection such as fever and raised white cell count. The need for any further procedure for the same stone will also be recorded. The central hypothesis is that there is a meaningful difference between ESWL and RIRS in stone clearance, safety, pain, and need for retreatment. The findings are expected to help doctors and patients choose the most suitable treatment for kidney stones of this size in routine practice.",[155,26],[215,155,360,361,67],"Urolithiasis","Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy","2025-11-21",{"date":364,"type":41},"2025-12-03",{"date":366,"type":41},"2025-09-05",{"date":368,"type":20},"2026-02-05",{"name":370,"class":80},"Ziauddin Hospital",{"id":372,"slug":373,"hasResults":11,"nctId":374,"briefTitle":375,"officialTitle":376,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":377,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":378,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":379,"briefSummary":380,"conditions":381,"keywords":383,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":386,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":387,"startDateStruct":389,"completionDateStruct":391,"leadSponsor":393,"locationsCount":395},"100348007","break-wavetm-extracorporeal-lithotripter-first-in-human-study-100348007","NCT03811171","Break Wave(TM) Extracorporeal Lithotripter First-in-Human Study","A Study of the SonoMotion Break Wave(TM) System for the Comminution of Urinary Tract Stones","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Individuals presenting with at least one kidney stone apparent on CT.\n* Stones must be within the upper urinary tract.\n* Stones are indicated for SWL treatment per the American Urology Association (AUA) 2016 guidelines.8\n* Stones must be measured under CT to be within the AUA 2016 SWL guidelines (i.e. ≤ 10 mm for lower pole stones and ≤ 20 mm for non-lower pole stones).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Acute untreated urinary tract infection or urosepsis.\n* Uncorrected bleeding disorders or coagulopathies.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Uncorrected obstruction distal to the stone.\n* Patients receiving anticoagulants and who are unable or not willing to cease the medication for the Break Wave procedure.\n* Stones that are not echogenically visible or cannot be positioned within the Break Wave therapy focus.\n* Individuals belonging to a vulnerable group (pregnant, mentally disabled, prisoner, etc.).\n* Patients unwilling to comply with the follow-up protocol, including post-procedure CT.\n* Individuals under 18 years of age.\n* Anatomic presentations preventing adequate positioning or delivery of the Break Wave pulse.\n* Calcified abdominal aortic aneurysms or calcified renal artery aneurysms.\n* Solitary kidney\n* Comorbidity risks which, in at the discretion of the physician, would make the patient a poor candidate for the Break Wave procedure, such as anatomical anomalies that may not be conducive to adequate stone fragment passage.",{"count":329,"type":20},[62],"This is a prospective, open-label, multi-center, single-arm (non-randomized) study to assess the safety and effectiveness of breaking stones in the upper urinary tract using the SonoMotion Break Wave technology. Up to 30 subjects will be included. The procedure will be performed in a hospital surgical environment as an outpatient (without being admitted) or in a non-surgical environment such as a clinic or office procedure room. The procedure will be performed under varying levels of anesthesia ranging from no anesthesia to general anesthesia (fully asleep). Stones will be limited to ≤ 10 mm for lower pole stones and ≤ 20 mm everywhere else.\n\nSafety will be measured by the self-reported occurrences of adverse events, unplanned emergency department or clinic visits, and the need for further intervention. Fragmentation will be measured by self-reported stone passage and a comparison of computed tomography (CT) images before and after the procedure.",[26,382],"Urinary Calculi",[384,33,385],"Stone","Calculi","2025-07-24",{"date":388,"type":41},"2025-07-29",{"date":390,"type":41},"2019-08-20",{"date":392,"type":20},"2027-03-30",{"name":394,"class":48},"SonoMotion",6,{"id":397,"slug":398,"hasResults":11,"nctId":399,"briefTitle":400,"officialTitle":401,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":402,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":403,"enrollmentInfo":404,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":406,"briefSummary":407,"conditions":408,"keywords":410,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":416,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":417,"startDateStruct":419,"completionDateStruct":421,"leadSponsor":423,"locationsCount":81},"100593938","super-pulsed-thulium-fiber-laser-versus-holmiumyag-laser-in-retrograde-intrarenal-surgery-for-upper-ureteral-and-renal-stones-100593938","NCT07012941","Super-Pulsed Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium:YAG Laser in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Upper Ureteral and Renal Stones","An Application of Super-pulsed TFL vs Ho:YAG Laser in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Upper Ureter and Renal Stones: A Multi-center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. 18 ≤ Age ≤ 75 years old, regardless of gender, able to tolerate surgery;\n2. Patients who have been confirmed by bilateral renal\u002Furinary tract CT to have upper ureteral or renal stones, single or multiple, and are planning to undergo ureteroscopic lithotripsy for stone removal;\n3. Confirmed by bilateral renal\u002Furinary tract CT, the cumulative maximum diameter of stones is 10mm\\\u003Ccumulative maximum diameter ≤ 25mm;\n4. Those who voluntarily participate and sign an informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Uncontrollable systemic hemorrhagic disease;\n2. Severe spinal deformities, severe hip joint deformities, and difficulty in lithotomy position;\n3. Uncontrolled urinary tract infections;\n4. Any intracavitary surgery caused by anatomical factors of the urinary system cannot be performed;\n5. Pregnant, planned pregnancy within 3 months, and lactating female patients;\n6. The patients determined by the investigator to be unsuitable for this study include (but are not limited to): known to have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or AIDS; Suffering from mental illness; Infectious diseases;","75 Years",{"count":405,"type":20},448,[62],"The holmium laser is currently considered the gold standard for lithotripsy on urinary lithiasis, whereas the super-pulsed thulium fibre laser is a relatively new technology. Through a multi-center prospective randomised clinical study that mainly aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of a super-pulsed fibre thulium laser compared to a holmium laser in the treatment of upper ureteral and renal stones (10mm\\\u003Ccumulative maximum diameter ≤ 25mm) in retrograde intrarenal surgery. The research participants are assigned randomly to undergo retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) either using a super-pulsed thulium fibre laser or a holmium-YAG laser with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The secondary aim of this study is to provide high-level evidence for the development of diagnostic and treatment guidelines in the field of urolithiasis, both domestically and internationally. The outcomes of the RIRS procedures are compared for the two treatment arms.",[409,26],"Ureterolithiasis",[411,412,33,413,414,415],"Super pulse thulium fiber laser (SPTFL)","Ho:YAG laser","Ureteral Stone","Ureteroscopy","renal stone","2025-06-09",{"date":418,"type":41},"2025-06-10",{"date":420,"type":20},"2025-07-01",{"date":422,"type":20},"2027-03-20",{"name":424,"class":80},"Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University",{"id":426,"slug":427,"hasResults":11,"nctId":428,"briefTitle":429,"officialTitle":429,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":430,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":431,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":432,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":434,"briefSummary":435,"conditions":436,"keywords":442,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":448,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":449,"startDateStruct":451,"completionDateStruct":453,"leadSponsor":455,"locationsCount":4},"100588661","comparison-of-myocardial-injury-after-noncardiac-surgery-mins-incidence-in-supine-vs-prone-positioning-during-percutaneous-nephrolithotomy-pnl-100588661","NCT06944301","Comparison of Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery (MINS) Incidence in Supine vs. Prone Positioning During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥40 years.\n* Patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) for kidney stones.\n* Willing and able to provide informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known coronary artery disease, heart failure, or other significant cardiovascular conditions.\n* Elevated preoperative troponin levels (≥0.03 ng\u002FmL).\n* Major intraoperative complications (e.g., severe bleeding requiring transfusion).\n* Inability to comply with study procedures.","40 Years",{"count":433,"type":20},400,[62],"This prospective cohort study aims to compare the incidence of Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery (MINS) in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) for kidney stones in supine versus prone positioning. MINS is defined as an elevated postoperative troponin level (≥0.03 ng\u002FmL) within 48 hours after surgery. Approximately 400 patients will be enrolled, with 200 patients in each positioning group (supine and prone). The primary outcome is the incidence of MINS, assessed through troponin measurements and electrocardiogram (ECG) findings. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative complications, duration of surgery, and postoperative recovery metrics. The study seeks to determine whether surgical positioning impacts MINS risk, potentially guiding safer surgical practices.",[437,438,439,26,440,441,155],"MINS","Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery","Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery (MINS)","Renal Stones","Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL)",[437,443,444,445,446,447],"PNL","percutaneous nephrolithotomy","Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery","prone","supine","2025-04-23",{"date":450,"type":41},"2025-04-25",{"date":452,"type":20},"2025-06-01",{"date":454,"type":20},"2026-08-01",{"name":456,"class":80},"Medipol University",{"id":458,"slug":459,"hasResults":11,"nctId":460,"briefTitle":461,"officialTitle":462,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":463,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":57,"maxAge":403,"enrollmentInfo":464,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":466,"briefSummary":467,"conditions":468,"keywords":469,"overallStatus":130,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":471,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":472,"startDateStruct":474,"completionDateStruct":476,"leadSponsor":478,"locationsCount":81},"100580762","an-intelligent-pressure-and-temperature-control-ureteral-soft-scope-system-for-treating-stones-with-infection-100580762","NCT06841523","An Intelligent Pressure and Temperature Control Ureteral Soft Scope System for Treating Stones With Infection.","Intelligent Pressure and Temperature Control Ureteral Soft Scope System for the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones Complicated With Infection in the Kidney and Upper Ureter: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. 18 ≤ Age ≤ 75 years old, regardless of gender, able to tolerate surgery;\n2. ASA I-III;\n3. Patients who have been confirmed by bilateral renal\u002Furinary tract CT to have upper ureteral or renal stones, single or multiple, with a cumulative maximum diameter of 10mm \\\u003C cumulative maximum diameter ≤ 20mm, and are planning to undergo ureteroscopic lithotripsy for stone removal;\n4. Confirmed urinary tract infection, indicated by positive urine leukocytes and nitrite, or positive urine culture, with appropriate antibiotic treatment administered preoperatively;\n5. Those who voluntarily participate and sign an informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Uncontrollable systemic hemorrhagic disease;\n2. Severe spinal deformities, severe hip joint deformities, and difficulty in lithotomy position;\n3. Uncontrolled acute urinary tract infections;\n4. Any intracavitary surgery caused by anatomical factors of the urinary system cannot be performed;\n5. Pregnant, planned pregnancy within 3 months, and lactating female patients;\n6. The patients determined by the investigator to be unsuitable for this study include (but are not limited to): known to have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or AIDS; Suffering from mental illness; Infectious diseases.",{"count":465,"type":20},288,[62],"The goal of this clinical trial is to determine the efficacy and safety of a novel intelligent pressure and temperature-controlled ureteroscope system for treating renal and upper ureteral stones with concurrent infection. It will also assess its ability to reduce postoperative complications and improve stone clearance rates. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\nDoes the intelligent system lower the complication rate and enhance stone clearance compared to standard ureteroscopy? What safety issues or medical problems do participants experience when using the intelligent system? Researchers will compare the intelligent pressure and temperature-controlled ureteroscope system to a standard ureteroscope to evaluate its effectiveness in treating renal and upper ureteral stones.\n\nParticipants will:\n\nUndergo surgery using either the intelligent system or a standard ureteroscope Be monitored for postoperative complications, stone clearance, and other relevant outcomes Participate in follow-up visits to assess recovery and treatment efficacy",[409,26],[413,415,414,470],"Upper urinary tract stones with concurrent infection","2025-03-04",{"date":473,"type":41},"2025-03-07",{"date":475,"type":20},"2025-04-01",{"date":477,"type":20},"2028-04-01",{"name":424,"class":80}]