[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"renal-stones\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:renal-stones":27},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,11,0,[8,48,79,102,125,152,179,215,241,274,294],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":36,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":37,"startDateStruct":40,"completionDateStruct":42,"leadSponsor":44,"locationsCount":47},"100640042","phase-2-tamsulosin-and-intraureteral-aminophylline-for-ureteral-access-during-rirs-100640042",false,"NCT07623876","Tamsulosin and Intraureteral Aminophylline for Ureteral Access During RIRS","Comparative Efficacy of Tamsulosin, Intraureteral Aminophylline, and Their Combination in Facilitating Ureteral Access During Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.","TAM-AMIN-UAS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18 years or older.\n* Unilateral renal stone 2 cm or less in maximal diameter on preoperative imaging.\n* Scheduled for primary retrograde intrarenal surgery.\n* Ability to provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Prior ureteral stenting on the study side.\n* Bilateral same-session retrograde intrarenal surgery.\n* Concomitant ureteral stone requiring primary semirigid ureteroscopy as the main procedure.\n* Known ureteral stricture or prior ureteral reconstructive surgery on the study side.\n* Active urinary tract infection or untreated positive urine culture.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Known allergy or contraindication to tamsulosin or aminophylline.\n* Significant cardiac arrhythmia, uncontrolled ischemic heart disease, seizure disorder, or hyperthyroidism.\n* Severe hepatic impairment.\n* Inability to comply with the 7-day preoperative medication protocol.","ALL","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},322,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"PHASE2","This multicenter randomized controlled trial will evaluate whether preoperative tamsulosin, intraureteral aminophylline, or their combination can improve ureteral access during primary retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Adult patients with unilateral renal stones measuring 2 cm or less and planned placement of a 10\u002F12 Fr ureteral access sheath will be randomly assigned to one of four groups in a 2x2 factorial design. Participants will receive either tamsulosin or placebo for 7 days before surgery and either intraureteral aminophylline or intraureteral placebo during the procedure. The main outcome will be successful first-attempt placement of the planned 10\u002F12 Fr ureteral access sheath after study solution instillation, without active ureteral dilatation, sheath downsizing, prestenting with deferred surgery, or abandonment of the procedure due to access failure.",[27,28,29],"Renal Stones","Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery","Ureteral Access Sheath Placement",[31,32,33,34],"Retrograde intrarenal surgery","Tamsulosin","Intraureteral aminophylline","ureteral access sheath","RECRUITING","2026-05-28",{"date":38,"type":39},"2026-06-03","ACTUAL",{"date":41,"type":39},"2026-05-06",{"date":43,"type":21},"2027-05",{"name":45,"class":46},"Beni-Suef University","OTHER",3,{"id":49,"slug":50,"hasResults":11,"nctId":51,"briefTitle":52,"officialTitle":53,"acronym":54,"eligibilityCriteria":55,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":56,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":58,"briefSummary":60,"conditions":61,"keywords":65,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":69,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":70,"startDateStruct":72,"completionDateStruct":74,"leadSponsor":76,"locationsCount":47},"100600770","trial-of-ureteroscopy-vs-steerable-continuous-flow-aspiration-technology-100600770","NCT07101809","Trial of Ureteroscopy vs Steerable Continuous Flow Aspiration Technology","Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation (SURE) With the CVAC® System Compared to Standard Ureteroscopy With no Suction for the Treatment of Renal Stones: a Prospective, Randomized Trial","TRUST","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Candidate for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy\n* Be willing and able to return for and respond to all study-related follow up procedures\n* Have been informed of the nature of the study and has provided informed consent using the IRB approved informed consent (ICF)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Untreated urinary tract infection at the time of the index procedure\n* Significant comorbidities\n* Bladder, ureteral or kidney abnormalities\n* Pregnant individuals\n* Unable to meet the treatment and follow up protocol requirements",{"count":57,"type":21},150,[59],"NA","The goal of this clinical trial is to compare Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation (SURE) using the CVAC System and standard ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy for the treatment of urolithiasis. This is a prospective, randomized (1:1), multi-center study.",[62,63,27,64],"Urolithiasis","Stones, Kidney","Kidney Stones",[66,67,68],"ureteroscopy","CVAC","SURE","2026-05-18",{"date":71,"type":39},"2026-05-20",{"date":73,"type":21},"2026-05",{"date":75,"type":21},"2029-07",{"name":77,"class":78},"Calyxo, Inc.","INDUSTRY",{"id":80,"slug":81,"hasResults":11,"nctId":82,"briefTitle":83,"officialTitle":84,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":85,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":86,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":87,"phases":4,"briefSummary":88,"conditions":89,"keywords":90,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":92,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":93,"startDateStruct":95,"completionDateStruct":97,"leadSponsor":99,"locationsCount":101},"100598464","retro-study-retrograde-renal-access-outcomes-100598464","NCT07071831","RETRO Study (RETrograde Renal Access Outcomes)","RetroPerc®-A Prospective, Multi-institutional Trial of Efficacy of the RetroPerc Device","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Renal stone or total linear sum of 1.5-3cm cm in maximum dimension (largest diameter in axial or coronal)--- multiple stones should be summed to determine stone size.\n* Age \\>=18 years of age\n* Gender: both men and women included.\n* Ethnic background: all ethnicities will be included in the study population and the specific ethnic diversity present in the study population will reflect the geographic distributions of the participating institutions.\n* Plan for PCNL in the supine position\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Active pregnancy\n* BMI \\>45\n* Severe Hydronephrosis - renal pelvis diameter \\> 20mm\n* Flank window \\\u003C 4 cm are ineligible for puncture\n* Previous ipsilateral PCNL\n* Currently with \"useful\" nephrostomy tube on ipsilateral side\n* Uncorrectable coagulopathies\n* Untreated urinary tract infection\n* Subjects with significant morbidities such as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥ 4, severe spinal cord injuries, severe cardiopulmonary insufficiency, uncontrolled diabetes, neurological disorders, bedbound, anticipated life expectancy less than 5 years, or any other comorbidity, that in the opinion of the principal investigator could represent an increased peri-operative risk for the subject;\n* Ipsilateral partial nephrectomy\n* History of ipsilateral ureteral reimplantation or ureteral reconstruction;\n* History of Simple or radical prostatectomy\n* History of cystectomy\n* History of calyceal diverticula stone;\n* History of renal donation or transplant;\n* Any other previous pelvic surgical treatment that could put the subject at greater procedural complication risk or technical difficulty;\n* Ureteral ipsilateral stricture, untreated;\n* Ureteral stricture, untreated (not to include \"tight\" ureter);\n* Any other bladder, ureteral or kidney congenital genitourinary abnormalities (e.g. Horseshoe kidney, ipsilateral duplicated or partially duplicated collecting system, ipsilateral ectopic kidney, cross-fused ectopia, bifid renal pelvis with no horizontally directed calyces, solitary kidney, etc.) preventing the ability to direct a puncture laterally or render the subject stone free;\n* Have participated in any other clinical trial within the last 3 months, and\u002For plans to participate in any other investigational or invasive clinical trial during this study;\n* If female, breast-feeding, or if childbearing age, is not using contraception between screening and 90 days post-op;\n* Subject has current or recent history of substance abuse (e.g. recreational drugs, narcotics, or alcohol) requiring intervention;\n* Is a prisoner or ward of the state;\n* Is unable to meet the treatment and follow up protocol requirements.",{"count":57,"type":21},"OBSERVATIONAL","The goal of this observational study is to learn about the benefit of using RetroPerc® in obtaining renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. The device is already used in routine clinical practice by urologists around the country.\n\nParticipants who are already scheduled to undergo percutaneous nephrolithotomy as part of their regular care will be asked to participate.",[27],[91],"kidney stones","2026-05-01",{"date":94,"type":39},"2026-05-04",{"date":96,"type":39},"2024-12-06",{"date":98,"type":21},"2027-12",{"name":100,"class":46},"University of Kansas Medical Center",2,{"id":103,"slug":104,"hasResults":11,"nctId":105,"briefTitle":106,"officialTitle":107,"acronym":108,"eligibilityCriteria":109,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":110,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":87,"phases":4,"briefSummary":112,"conditions":113,"keywords":114,"overallStatus":116,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":117,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":118,"startDateStruct":120,"completionDateStruct":122,"leadSponsor":124,"locationsCount":4},"100604860","stone-clearance-with-aspiration-vs-other-technologies-a-real-world-evidence-study-100604860","NCT07155005","Stone Clearance With Aspiration vs Other Technologies: a Real-world Evidence Study","Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation (SURE) With the CVAC® System Compared to Other Therapeutic Interventions for the Treatment of Renal Stones: a Prospective, Observational Trial","SCORE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Candidate for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy or PCNL for the treatment of renal stones\n* Be willing and able to return for and respond to all study-related follow up procedures\n* Have been informed of the nature of the study and has provided informed consent using the IRB approved informed consent (ICF)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Untreated urinary tract infection at the time of the index procedure\n* Visual evidence of infection at the time of the index procedure\n* History of sepsis\n* Significant comorbidities\n* Bladder, ureteral or kidney abnormalities\n* Pregnant individuals\n* Unable to meet the treatment and follow up protocol requirements",{"count":111,"type":21},1000,"The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation (SURE) with the CVAC System versus other commonly used renal-stone interventions.",[62,63,27,64],[66,67,68,115],"URS","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-03-11",{"date":119,"type":39},"2026-03-12",{"date":121,"type":21},"2026-03-16",{"date":123,"type":21},"2029-04",{"name":77,"class":78},{"id":126,"slug":127,"hasResults":11,"nctId":128,"briefTitle":129,"officialTitle":130,"acronym":131,"eligibilityCriteria":132,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":133,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":135,"briefSummary":136,"conditions":137,"keywords":139,"overallStatus":116,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":143,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":144,"startDateStruct":146,"completionDateStruct":148,"leadSponsor":150,"locationsCount":4},"100623172","efficacy--safety-of-high-power-vs-low-power-holmium-laser-in-mini-pcnl-for-large-renal-stones-100623172","NCT07393178","Efficacy & Safety of High Power vs. Low Power Holmium Laser in Mini-PCNL for Large Renal Stones","High Pulse Power vs. Low Pulse Power Holmium: YAG Laser in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Management of Renal Stones > 20 mm: A Randomized Controlled Trial","miniPCNL","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years\n* Renal Stones \\\u003C 20 mm indicated for intervention (pain, infection, obstructing stone causing hydronephrosis or parenchymal affection)\n* Informed consent obtained\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Active urinary tract infection\n* Bleeding diathesis\n* Pregnancy\n* Anatomical anomalies impeding access e.g. ectopic malrotated kidneys, crossed fused kidneys...etc.)",{"count":134,"type":21},70,[59],"The investigator will compare between holmium laser setting during miniPCNL for renal stones as regard safety \\& efficacy",[27,138],"Renal Calculi > 2 cm",[140,141,142],"mini-PCNL","holmium-YAG","laser lithotripsy","2026-02-04",{"date":145,"type":39},"2026-02-06",{"date":147,"type":21},"2026-03-15",{"date":149,"type":21},"2027-01-30",{"name":151,"class":46},"Mansoura University",{"id":153,"slug":154,"hasResults":11,"nctId":155,"briefTitle":156,"officialTitle":157,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":158,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":159,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":161,"briefSummary":162,"conditions":163,"keywords":164,"overallStatus":116,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":169,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":170,"startDateStruct":172,"completionDateStruct":174,"leadSponsor":176,"locationsCount":178},"100617734","efficacy-and-safety-of-flexible-ureteroscopy-versus-percutaneous-nephrolithotomy-in-management-of-staghorn-stones-100617734","NCT07322471","Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Management of Staghorn Stones","Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Management of Staghorn Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged ≥18 years.\n* Diagnosis of complete staghorn renal stones confirmed by non-contrast CT.\n* Negative urine culture.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Congenital renal anomalies (e.g., horseshoe kidney, malrotation).\n* Coagulopathy or uncorrected bleeding disorder.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Previous ipsilateral renal surgery.",{"count":160,"type":21},138,[59],"Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the treatment of choice for management of large renal calculi larger than 2 cm based on the yearly updated European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. However, PCNL is a challenging procedure which may be associated with several complications ranging from mild complications, such as urinary extravasation, leakage, infection and bleeding requiring transfusion to sever complications, such as sepsis, injury to surrounding organs, persistent hematuria and renal function impairment. The overall complication rate varies based on patient factors and surgical expertise.\n\nNot only serious complications that defer some endourologists from performing PCNL but also such procedure is contraindicated and avoided by surgeons in cases of retrorenal colon, morbidly obese patients, spinal abnormalities and bleeding diathesis. Therefore, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) or flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) is increasingly recognized as an effective alternative, particularly for patients seeking a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of complications.\n\nThe best practice in dealing with renal stones using FURS can be achieved via preoperative stenting for 2-4 weeks, negative urine culture, ureteral access sheath (UAS) usage and optimizing laser settings. Compared to PCNL, FURS is a less challenging procedure with low learning curve, less invasive and less bleeding. However, the high cost, including laser usage cost, presenting costs and multisession costs, in addition to the high risk of postoperative infection are considered as major drawbacks of FURS.\n\nRIRS is emerging as an effective, safe, minimally invasive alternative to PCNL. Yet, the success of RIRS in comparison to PCNL, especially in a single session, is still questionable and there is no consensus about it.",[27],[165,166,167,168],"PCNL","RIRS","staghorn stone","renal stone","2026-01-07",{"date":171,"type":39},"2026-01-09",{"date":173,"type":21},"2026-01-01",{"date":175,"type":21},"2026-07-01",{"name":177,"class":46},"Menoufia University",1,{"id":180,"slug":181,"hasResults":11,"nctId":182,"briefTitle":183,"officialTitle":184,"acronym":185,"eligibilityCriteria":186,"healthyVolunteers":187,"sex":17,"minAge":188,"maxAge":189,"enrollmentInfo":190,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":192,"briefSummary":193,"conditions":194,"keywords":198,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":206,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":207,"startDateStruct":209,"completionDateStruct":211,"leadSponsor":213,"locationsCount":178},"100606103","targeted-abdominal-ct-in-conjunction-with-lung-cancer-screening-100606103","NCT07171190","Targeted Abdominal CT in Conjunction With Lung Cancer Screening","Targeted Abdominal CT in Conjunction With Lung Cancer Screening - a Pilot Study (TACTICAL1): a Randomised Controlled Pilot Study of Adding Abdominal Non-contrast CT to Lung Cancer Screening CT Thorax Amongst High Lung Cancer Risk Ever-smokers Aged 55-70.","TACTICAL1","1. For the individual level randomisation to invitation control or invitation intervention\n\n   Inclusion criteria: To be randomised at the individual level to receive an invitation letter for LCS (standard of care; invitation control) versus invitation letter for LCS with potential for an additional abdominal scan (invitation intervention):\n   * Be eligible to be invited to the first round of a West Yorkshire and Harrogate LCS or a Humber and North Yorkshire Cancer Alliance LCS (i.e. have been identified as a smoker or ex-smoker and registered as living within the relevant LCS catchment area).\n   * Be registered with a GP in England.\n   * Be aged 55-70 years 364 days old at the date of invitation.\n\n   Exclusion criteria\n\n   • None\n2. Eligibility criteria for the cluster level randomisation to scan intervention or scan control\n\n   Inclusion criteria a): To be eligible for the cluster level randomisation the participant must:\n   * Have been individually randomised to the invitation intervention arm\n   * Have booked in for a LCS assessment\n\n   Inclusion criteria b): To receive the CT Thorax plus ANCCT, the participant must:\n   * Have been randomised to the scan intervention cluster\n   * Be invited to attend for a LDCT Thorax based upon scores on either PLCOM2012 or Liverpool Lung Project (LLP) risk prediction models (PLCOM2012 risk of ≥1.51% over six years or LLPver2 five-year risk of ≥2.5%)14 during the LCS assessment.\n   * Have attended the lung scan appointment\n   * Have given electronic or written informed consent to participate\n\n   Exclusion criteria\n\n   Existing LCS exclusion criteria:\n   * Participant does not have capacity to give consent (standard criteria for assessing capacity apply).\n   * Weight or physical size exceeds restrictions for scanner (\\>200kg).\n   * Participant unable to lie flat.\n   * Poor physical fitness such that treatment with curative intent would be contra-indicated.\n   * Participants who have had a full CT Thorax that meets the image reconstruction parameters of the programme in the last 12 months are not excluded from the lung screening programme, but would have their CT Thorax appointment deferred until 12 months have elapsed since that last scan, provided they still meet all inclusion criteria and have no exclusion criteria - if the deferred appointment is within the timeframe for TACTICAL1, they remain eligible but if deferred appointment is outside the timeframe for TACTICAL1 they would not be eligible.\n\n   Additional TACTICAL1 exclusion criteria:\n\n   • Had an abdominal CT in the previous 12 months or has one booked within the next 3 months.\n   * For HNY, this is checked before the LCS assessment. Therefore, participants will be excluded before the LCS assessment.\n   * For WYH, this is only checked after the LCS assessment. Therefore, anyone having had an abdominal CT in the previous 12 months or with one booked within the next 3 months will be excluded at this point (see 8.6).\n3. Eligibility criteria for the process evaluation Health care professionals: Healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of LCS in any of the study areas who agree to take part.\n\nParticipants: People individually randomised to the invitation intervention arm who attend the LCS assessment or the scanning unit within the study period and who agree to be interviewed.",true,"55 Years","70 Years",{"count":191,"type":21},6272,[59],"Early detection through screening can improve cancer survival by identifying it when it's most treatable. The NHS now offers Lung Cancer Screening (LCS) assessments to people aged 55-74 who have ever smoked. Those at higher risk of lung cancer are offered a lung scan.\n\nThis group also has a high risk of developing abdominal cancers, such as kidney cancer. A recent study explored whether it would be feasible to extend the lung scan to include the abdomen. Results showed most participants supported this addition, and the number of serious findings was similar to those detected in UK breast or bowel cancer screening programmes.\n\nHowever, the abdominal scan was only offered on the day of the lung scan, giving little time for people to consider their decision. The process also added too much time to be practical for widespread implementation.\n\nThis new study will:\n\n* Test whether mentioning the possible abdominal scan in the initial LCS invitation affects participation in LCS assessments.\n* Test new processes to assess if the abdominal scan can be added to the lung scan with minimal extra time.\n* Check if participants can be split between the lung scan only group and lung and abdominal scan group using an approach called 'cluster randomisation'. This will be important in case a bigger trial is needed.\n* See whether the additional processes are acceptable\n\nPeople aged 55-70 who are invited to the lung cancer screening will be eligible to take part in this study. Only those who are found to be at a high risk of lung cancer after their assessment, and therefore offered a lung scan, will be offered the abdominal scan, provided they have not had an abdominal scan in the previous 12 months or one booked in the next 3 months.\n\nThis study will take place in two existing lung cancer screening locations in Yorkshire.",[195,196,197,27],"Renal Cell Carcinoma (Kidney Cancer)","Kidney Cancers","AAA - Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm",[199,200,201,202,203,204,205],"Screening","NHS Lung Cancer Screening","Kidney cancer","Abdominal cancer","Lung cancer","Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (AAA)","Abdominal screening","2025-12-12",{"date":208,"type":39},"2025-12-19",{"date":210,"type":39},"2025-11-11",{"date":212,"type":21},"2027-10",{"name":214,"class":46},"University of Cambridge",{"id":216,"slug":217,"hasResults":11,"nctId":218,"briefTitle":219,"officialTitle":220,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":221,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":222,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":224,"briefSummary":225,"conditions":226,"keywords":227,"overallStatus":116,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":232,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":233,"startDateStruct":235,"completionDateStruct":237,"leadSponsor":239,"locationsCount":4},"100606193","safety-and-effectiveness-of-antegrade-flexible-ureteroscopy-assisted-percutaneous-nephrolithotomy-for-staghorn-calculi-100606193","NCT07172373","Safety and Effectiveness of Antegrade Flexible Ureteroscopy-Assisted Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Staghorn Calculi","Safety and Efficacy of Antegrade Flexible Ureteroscopy-Assisted Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Staghorn Calculi: A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nStaghorn calculi confirmed by non-contrast CT of the urinary system; Age ≥18 years; General condition suitable for surgical treatment; Ability to understand and voluntarily sign the informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nSolitary kidney or congenital anomalies (such as horseshoe kidney or ectopic kidney); Patients with severe preoperative pyelonephritis; Patients with psychiatric disorders or unwilling to cooperate; Patients with uncontrolled diabetes or hypertension who cannot tolerate surgery; Patients with coagulation disorders; Patients deemed unsuitable for participation in this trial by the investigator.",{"count":223,"type":21},420,[59],"Objective This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antegrade flexible ureteroscopy-assisted PCNL for the treatment of staghorn calculi, compared with standard PCNL.\n\nMethods This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial plans to enroll 420 patients with staghorn calculi, randomly assigned into two groups: the experimental group (antegrade flexible ureteroscopy-assisted PCNL, n=210) and the control group (standard PCNL, n=210). The primary endpoint is stone-free rate (defined as no residual fragment ≥2 mm on postoperative CT). Secondary endpoints include operative time, number of percutaneous tracts, rate of secondary procedures, hemoglobin decrease, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and length of hospital stay. All patients will undergo CT evaluation on postoperative day 2. Subgroup analysis will be performed according to the number of stone branches (≥5 vs \\\u003C5).",[62,27],[228,229,230,231],"Percutaneous nephrolithotomy","Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy","Staghorn calculi","Stone branch number","2025-09-12",{"date":234,"type":39},"2025-09-15",{"date":236,"type":21},"2025-10-01",{"date":238,"type":21},"2026-04-30",{"name":240,"class":46},"Tianjin Medical University Second Hospital",{"id":242,"slug":243,"hasResults":11,"nctId":244,"briefTitle":245,"officialTitle":245,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":246,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":247,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":248,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":250,"briefSummary":251,"conditions":252,"keywords":259,"overallStatus":116,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":265,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":266,"startDateStruct":268,"completionDateStruct":270,"leadSponsor":272,"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":249,"type":21},400,[59],"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.",[253,254,255,256,27,257,258],"MINS","Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery","Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery (MINS)","Renal Calculi","Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PNL)","Nephrolithiasis",[253,260,261,262,263,264],"PNL","percutaneous nephrolithotomy","Myocardial Injury after Noncardiac Surgery","prone","supine","2025-04-23",{"date":267,"type":39},"2025-04-25",{"date":269,"type":21},"2025-06-01",{"date":271,"type":21},"2026-08-01",{"name":273,"class":46},"Medipol University",{"id":275,"slug":276,"hasResults":11,"nctId":277,"briefTitle":278,"officialTitle":278,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":279,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":280,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":87,"phases":4,"briefSummary":282,"conditions":283,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":285,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":286,"startDateStruct":288,"completionDateStruct":290,"leadSponsor":292,"locationsCount":178},"100582921","evaluation-of-adherence-to-the-mediterranean-diet-in-patients-with-recurrent-renal-stones-and-disease-osteometabolic-100582921","NCT06869603","Evaluation of Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in Patients with Recurrent Renal Stones and Disease Osteometabolic","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with idiopathic relapsing nephrolithiasis with evidence instrumental of bilateral renal stones or emission of more than one stone in the past 5 years\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who had albumin-corrected plasma calcium levels \\> 11.0 mg\u002Fdl at the time of the first determination of serum levels of 25 OH vitamin D;\n* Patients who had glomerular filtration rate \\\u003C 60 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73 m2;\n* Patients who had positive personal history of chronic granulomatous disease;\n* pregnancy patients;\n* Positive personal history for morphological abnormalities of the excretory system;\n* incomplete data collection.",{"count":281,"type":21},50,"The aim of this research protocol is to evaluate the adherence to the Mediterranean diet in patients suffering from recurrent kidney stones and osteometabolic diseases. Results of the study will allow to assess the dietary habits of patients with the above diseases. Given the universal prevalence of nephrolithiasis and osteometabolic diseases, the knowledge of these data appears crucial for the proper management of the dietary approach to prophylaxis secondar",[27,284],"Osteometabolic Disease","2025-03-10",{"date":287,"type":39},"2025-03-11",{"date":289,"type":39},"2023-12-07",{"date":291,"type":21},"2026-12",{"name":293,"class":46},"IRCCS SYNLAB SDN",{"id":295,"slug":296,"hasResults":11,"nctId":297,"briefTitle":298,"officialTitle":299,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":300,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":301,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":303,"briefSummary":304,"conditions":305,"keywords":306,"overallStatus":116,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":308,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":309,"startDateStruct":311,"completionDateStruct":313,"leadSponsor":315,"locationsCount":4},"100571442","management-of-medium-sized-renal-stones-100571442","NCT06720311","Management of Medium Sized Renal Stones","Comparison Between Modified Tubeless Super-Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Flexible Ureterorenoscopy and Shockwave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Medium-sized Renal Stones: a Randomized Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients (≥ 18 years old)\n* Single renal stones 10-20 mm in longest dimension\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Previous upper urinary tract exploration in ipsilateral side.\n* Patients with JJ stent in ipsilateral side.\n* Absolute contraindications to SWL",{"count":302,"type":21},90,[59],"Urinary stone disease is a common urological condition that affects millions of people worldwide, often leading to significant morbidity and healthcare costs. Medium-sized renal stones, typically defined as stones measuring 1 to 2 cm in diameter, pose a particular challenge in management. These stones are large enough to potentially cause significant obstruction and symptoms, yet their size and location make selecting an optimal treatment modality crucial for achieving favorable outcomes with minimal complications.\n\nHistorically, open surgery was the primary intervention for large or complex stones. However, the advent of minimally invasive techniques has revolutionized stone management, allowing for more effective and patient-friendly approaches. Among these, Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP), flexible uretero-renoscopy (F-URS), and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) have emerged as minimally invasive modalities for managing medium-sized renal stones.\n\nThis study aims to evaluate the outcomes; safety, efficacy, and complications associated with SMP versus F-URS Versus SWL in the management of reanl stones 10-20 mm in diameter.",[27],[307],"Medium sized renal stones","2024-12-14",{"date":310,"type":39},"2024-12-18",{"date":312,"type":21},"2025-01-01",{"date":314,"type":21},"2027-01-01",{"name":316,"class":46},"Assiut University"]