Comparison of Holmium Laser and Thulium Laser for Mini PCNL
NCT ID: NCT06266793
Last Updated: 2024-05-23
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
52 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2024-03-07
Study Completion Date
2027-06-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
This is a single institution, single surgeon, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the Boston Scientific Lumenis Pulse 120H Moses 2.0 holmium laser versus the Olympus Soltive Superpulsed thulium fiber laser (TFL) for medium-to-large stones in the mini PCNL setting.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Efficiency and Safety of Holmium Laser With Moses Technology Versus SuperPulsed Laser System With Thulium Fiber Laser on Renal Stones
NCT06070714
Renal Stone
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Utilizing Holmium Laser for FURS Renal Stone Lithotripsy Comparing Stone Breaking vs. Stone Dusting Settings
NCT02683993
Stone Clearance
COMPLETED
NA
HoYAG vs TFL in miniPCNL With ClearPetra
NCT07087977
Nephrolithiasis
Kidney Stone
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Moses vs. Thulium Laser Study
NCT04963062
Urinary Tract Stone
COMPLETED
PHASE4
The Performance of the SOLTIVE Laser System for Laser Lithotripsy in Kidney or Ureteral Stones
NCT04556201
Kidney Stone
Ureteral Stone
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Multiple procedural modalities for treating nephrolithiasis are available to patients with the ultimate choice dependent on stone size, location, and patient factors. For over 30 years, the holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser has been the gold standard for laser lithotripsy due to its efficiency in stone fragmentation irrespective of stone composition and its enviable safety profile. Different energies, pulse rates, pulse durations, and work settings are utilized based on stone density and surgeon intent for fragmentation versus dusting.
Basic physical principles underlie the effectiveness of the Ho:YAG laser, which made a revolution over two decades ago. Energy is transmitted through a flexible quartz fiber that varies in size from 150-1,000 micrometers making it amenable to flexible ureteroscopy. Its wavelength of 2,100 nm is effectively absorbed by water conferring a safety profile which is further bolstered by its 0.4mm depth of penetration. The photothermal mechanism by which it exerts force requires direct stone contact leading to stone vaporization. As a pulsed laser, holmium emits a cyclic burst of light wavelength with a corresponding omission. The average of the laser's pulses accounts for the power output. Contemporary advancements have led to utilization of higher power by taking advantage of the pulse technology. At present pulse duration can be lengthened from 350 microseconds to 1500 microseconds and utilized to reduce stone retropulsion. The latest evolution of the technology includes the aptly named "Moses Technology" (now in version 2.0) whereby a short vapor bubble precedes a longer duration, high energy pulse that can conserve energy by means of travel through the vapor bubble. This technology has been key in reducing stone retropulsion leading to improved ablation rates. Data has suggested that the Moses technology improves patient outcomes by reducing procedural duration and reducing fragmentation time.
A newer alternative to the Ho:YAG laser is the thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripter, introduced in 2018. It can provide greater power output from a smaller fiber core due to the diode construction with silica chemically doped with thulium ions. This is achieved by using a 50-150 micrometer optical laser fiber core rather than mirrors to focus light energy as in the Ho:YAG. Small form factor renders the fiber more adaptable in acute angle applications. The low power consumption of the TFL arises from fan cooling and plug efficiency permitting increased pulse repetition rates up to 2,000 - 2,200 Hz with pulse durations from 0.2 to 12 milliseconds. Due to these improvements, the TFL can both fragment and dust with moderated heat generation. Moreover, the TFL is compatible with variable operating room configurations based on its standard electrical wall socket (110V) making it more accessible. Similar to the Ho:YAG laser its wavelength varies between 1,908 and 1,940 nm bestowing a higher absorption coefficient in water which grants a similar safety profile owing to higher energy density focused at the tip of the laser fiber. In summation, the TFL has comparable results for stone ablation and low retropulsion with lower power consumption and less retropulsion leading to better dusting.
Recent studies have compared specific features of each laser to standardize best practices albeit with no clear winner. Pulse profiles differ with each laser. The Ho:YAG pulse has an acute spike in voltage with a dramatic drop within 150 microseconds whereas the TFL pulse profile has an acute upsurge that is sustained for the duration of the pulse. This inherent property within the TFL allows greater dialed in variability. With regard to energy absorption the TFL has been shown to be 4-5 times more effective thus correlating with lower pulsed energies for stone ablation in the in vitro setting. Lower pulsed energies in conjunction with increased pulse durations allow for less retropulsion with better dusting. The TFL has demonstrable improvements in stone free rates by more readily creating fine dust than can the Ho:YAG and the Ho:YAG-MOSES in in vivo settings. Not to be undone, the Ho:YAG laser has statistically higher ablation rates at slow speeds of 500 mm/min when using approximately identical energies and frequencies. Data suggests that higher ablation rates are more readily obtained at high-powered settings (24W) albeit with increased risk for thermal damage. Moreover, in vivo models suggest increased risk for urothelial tissue injury when using TFL in the absence or ureteral access sheaths owing to increased temperature within the collecting system. At best, current in vivo and in vitro studies lack certain corollary to clinical scenarios however they do suggest an equivalency for tissue temperature damage by either laser modality via high-power low-irrigation settings. When going head-to-head the Ho:YAG has shown superiority with denser calcium phosphate stones. TFL may confer greater stone clearance but has also been found to increase the rate of infectious complications. Other studies have concluded no significant clinical time advantage, stone free rate, complication, or patient related stone quality of life outcomes. Therefore as both lasers confer safety with effectiveness, surgeon preference and institutional preference may dictate technological approach.
Studies have begun to compare TFL to high power holmium with Moses technology for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (URSLL), however, data is lacking as to the superior laser technology for medium or large stones approached antegrade in the mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) setting.
This is a single institution, single surgeon, randomized controlled trial that evaluates the holmium laser vs. the thulium laser for medium-to-large stones in the mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy setting. Patients will be screened and consented for participation in this study, and will be randomized to be treated using either the holmium or thulium laser for their procedure. This study aims to evaluate the efficiency of both FDA-approved lasers for this procedure to ascertain whether one of them has any advantage over the other. Procedural information will be evaluated as well as up to 90 day outcomes for the participants of this trial.
Basic physical principles underlie the effectiveness of the Ho:YAG laser, which made a revolution over two decades ago. Energy is transmitted through a flexible quartz fiber that varies in size from 150-1,000 micrometers making it amenable to flexible ureteroscopy. Its wavelength of 2,100 nm is effectively absorbed by water conferring a safety profile which is further bolstered by its 0.4mm depth of penetration. The photothermal mechanism by which it exerts force requires direct stone contact leading to stone vaporization. As a pulsed laser, holmium emits a cyclic burst of light wavelength with a corresponding omission. The average of the laser's pulses accounts for the power output. Contemporary advancements have led to utilization of higher power by taking advantage of the pulse technology. At present pulse duration can be lengthened from 350 microseconds to 1500 microseconds and utilized to reduce stone retropulsion. The latest evolution of the technology includes the aptly named "Moses Technology" (now in version 2.0) whereby a short vapor bubble precedes a longer duration, high energy pulse that can conserve energy by means of travel through the vapor bubble. This technology has been key in reducing stone retropulsion leading to improved ablation rates. Data has suggested that the Moses technology improves patient outcomes by reducing procedural duration and reducing fragmentation time.
A newer alternative to the Ho:YAG laser is the thulium fiber laser (TFL) lithotripter, introduced in 2018. It can provide greater power output from a smaller fiber core due to the diode construction with silica chemically doped with thulium ions. This is achieved by using a 50-150 micrometer optical laser fiber core rather than mirrors to focus light energy as in the Ho:YAG. Small form factor renders the fiber more adaptable in acute angle applications. The low power consumption of the TFL arises from fan cooling and plug efficiency permitting increased pulse repetition rates up to 2,000 - 2,200 Hz with pulse durations from 0.2 to 12 milliseconds. Due to these improvements, the TFL can both fragment and dust with moderated heat generation. Moreover, the TFL is compatible with variable operating room configurations based on its standard electrical wall socket (110V) making it more accessible. Similar to the Ho:YAG laser its wavelength varies between 1,908 and 1,940 nm bestowing a higher absorption coefficient in water which grants a similar safety profile owing to higher energy density focused at the tip of the laser fiber. In summation, the TFL has comparable results for stone ablation and low retropulsion with lower power consumption and less retropulsion leading to better dusting.
Recent studies have compared specific features of each laser to standardize best practices albeit with no clear winner. Pulse profiles differ with each laser. The Ho:YAG pulse has an acute spike in voltage with a dramatic drop within 150 microseconds whereas the TFL pulse profile has an acute upsurge that is sustained for the duration of the pulse. This inherent property within the TFL allows greater dialed in variability. With regard to energy absorption the TFL has been shown to be 4-5 times more effective thus correlating with lower pulsed energies for stone ablation in the in vitro setting. Lower pulsed energies in conjunction with increased pulse durations allow for less retropulsion with better dusting. The TFL has demonstrable improvements in stone free rates by more readily creating fine dust than can the Ho:YAG and the Ho:YAG-MOSES in in vivo settings. Not to be undone, the Ho:YAG laser has statistically higher ablation rates at slow speeds of 500 mm/min when using approximately identical energies and frequencies. Data suggests that higher ablation rates are more readily obtained at high-powered settings (24W) albeit with increased risk for thermal damage. Moreover, in vivo models suggest increased risk for urothelial tissue injury when using TFL in the absence or ureteral access sheaths owing to increased temperature within the collecting system. At best, current in vivo and in vitro studies lack certain corollary to clinical scenarios however they do suggest an equivalency for tissue temperature damage by either laser modality via high-power low-irrigation settings. When going head-to-head the Ho:YAG has shown superiority with denser calcium phosphate stones. TFL may confer greater stone clearance but has also been found to increase the rate of infectious complications. Other studies have concluded no significant clinical time advantage, stone free rate, complication, or patient related stone quality of life outcomes. Therefore as both lasers confer safety with effectiveness, surgeon preference and institutional preference may dictate technological approach.
Studies have begun to compare TFL to high power holmium with Moses technology for ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy (URSLL), however, data is lacking as to the superior laser technology for medium or large stones approached antegrade in the mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) setting.
This is a single institution, single surgeon, randomized controlled trial that evaluates the holmium laser vs. the thulium laser for medium-to-large stones in the mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy setting. Patients will be screened and consented for participation in this study, and will be randomized to be treated using either the holmium or thulium laser for their procedure. This study aims to evaluate the efficiency of both FDA-approved lasers for this procedure to ascertain whether one of them has any advantage over the other. Procedural information will be evaluated as well as up to 90 day outcomes for the participants of this trial.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Nephrolithiasis
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Participants
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Holmium Laser
Participants in this arm are randomized to be treated using the Lumenis Pulse 120H Moses 2.0 Holmium Laser
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Holmium Laser
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Assigned to be treated using the Lumenis Pulse 120H Moses 2.0 Holmium Laser.
Thulium Laser
Participants in this arm are randomized to be treated using the Olympus Soltive SuperPulsed Thulium Fiber Laser
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Thulium Laser
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Assigned to be treated using the Olympus Soltive Thulium SuperPulsed Fiber Laser
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Holmium Laser
Assigned to be treated using the Lumenis Pulse 120H Moses 2.0 Holmium Laser.
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Thulium Laser
Assigned to be treated using the Olympus Soltive Thulium SuperPulsed Fiber Laser
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Scheduled to undergo mini PCNL for nephrolithiasis
* Stone burden (multiple stones acceptable) with largest stone 1cm - 3 cm in greatest dimension on bone window of noncontrast CT within a 6 month preoperative period.
* Able to give informed consent
* Age 21 or older
* Untreated urinary tract infections
* Uncontrolled bleeding disorder and coagulopathy
* Abnormal upper tract anatomy such as presence of ureteral strictures or complete ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction
* Patients with urinary diversion such as ileal conduit or neobladder
* Any preexisting medical condition or situation that, in the investigator's opinion, could put the participant at significant risk, confound the study results, or interfere significantly with the participants' participation in the study
* Are currently prescribed buprenorphine or methadone, or carry active diagnosis of chronic opioid use disorder
* Stone burden (multiple stones acceptable) with largest stone 1cm - 3 cm in greatest dimension on bone window of noncontrast CT within a 6 month preoperative period.
* Able to give informed consent
* Age 21 or older
* Untreated urinary tract infections
* Uncontrolled bleeding disorder and coagulopathy
* Abnormal upper tract anatomy such as presence of ureteral strictures or complete ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction
* Patients with urinary diversion such as ileal conduit or neobladder
* Any preexisting medical condition or situation that, in the investigator's opinion, could put the participant at significant risk, confound the study results, or interfere significantly with the participants' participation in the study
* Are currently prescribed buprenorphine or methadone, or carry active diagnosis of chronic opioid use disorder
Exclusion Criteria
* Patients scheduled to undergo concurrent non-PCNL procedure such as contralateral ureteroscopy
* Inability to give informed consent
* Age less than 21
* Body Mass Index (BMI) \>45
* Pregnant or breastfeeding patients
* Inability to give informed consent
* Age less than 21
* Body Mass Index (BMI) \>45
* Pregnant or breastfeeding patients
Minimum Eligible Age
21 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
90 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Boston Scientific Corporation
INDUSTRY
Sponsor Role
collaborator
MaineHealth
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
David Sobel
Principal Investigator, MD
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
David W Sobel, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
MaineHealth
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Maine Medical Center
Portland, Maine, United States
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
United States
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Sadiq AS, Atallah W, Khusid J, Gupta M. The Surgical Technique of Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2021 Sep;35(S2):S68-S74. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1080.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Petzold R, Miernik A, Suarez-Ibarrola R. In Vitro Dusting Performance of a New Solid State Thulium Laser Compared to Holmium Laser Lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2021 Feb;35(2):221-225. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0525. Epub 2020 Sep 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Jiang P, Okhunov Z, Afyouni AS, Ali S, Hosseini Sharifi SH, Bhatt R, Brevik A, Ayad M, Larson K, Osann K, Patel RM, Landman J, Clayman RV. Comparison of Superpulse Thulium Fiber Laser vs Holmium Laser for Ablation of Renal Calculi in an In Vivo Porcine Model. J Endourol. 2023 Mar;37(3):335-340. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0445.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, Andronov AS, Plekhanova OA. Clinical Comparison of Super Pulse Thulium Fiber Laser and High-Power Holmium Laser for Ureteral Stone Management. J Endourol. 2021 Jun;35(6):795-800. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0581. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Soto-Palou F, Chen J, Medairos R, Zhong P, Antonelli J, Preminger GM, Lipkin ME. In Pursuit of the Optimal Dusting Settings with the Thulium Fiber Laser: An In Vitro Assessment. J Endourol. 2023 Aug;37(8):914-920. doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0168. Epub 2023 Jun 26.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Matlaga BR, Chew B, Eisner B, Humphreys M, Knudsen B, Krambeck A, Lange D, Lipkin M, Miller NL, Monga M, Pais V, Sur RL, Shah O. Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy: A Review of Dusting vs Fragmentation with Extraction. J Endourol. 2018 Jan;32(1):1-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0641. Epub 2017 Nov 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kronenberg P, Traxer O. The laser of the future: reality and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser-a systematic review. Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Sep;8(Suppl 4):S398-S417. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.08.01.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Darr C, Krafft U, Panic A, Tschirdewahn S, Hadaschik BA, Rehme C. Renal duplication with ureter duplex not following Meyer-Weigert-Rule with development of a megaureter of the lower ureteral segment due to distal stenosis - A case report. Urol Case Rep. 2019 Nov 14;28:101038. doi: 10.1016/j.eucr.2019.101038. eCollection 2020 Jan.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Nikoufar P, Hodhod A, Fathy M, Zakaria AS, Shabana W, Abdul Hadi R, Abdelkawi IF, Alaradi H, Abbas L, Alaref A, Shahrour W, Elmansy H. Thulium Fiber Laser vs Pulse-Modulated Holmium MOSES Laser in Flexible Ureteroscopy for the Management of Kidney Stones: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis. J Endourol. 2023 Oct;37(10):1081-1087. doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0284. Epub 2023 Sep 20.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ibrahim A, Elhilali MM, Fahmy N, Carrier S, Andonian S. Double-Blinded Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Regular and Moses Modes of Holmium Laser Lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2020 May;34(5):624-628. doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0695. Epub 2020 Apr 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Okhunov Z, Jiang P, Afyouni AS, Ayad M, Arada R, Brevik A, Akopian G, Patel RM, Landman J, Clayman RV. Caveat Emptor: The Heat Is "ON"-An In Vivo Evaluation of the Thulium Fiber Laser and Temperature Changes in the Porcine Kidney During Dusting and Fragmentation Modes. J Endourol. 2021 Nov;35(11):1716-1722. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0206. Epub 2021 Oct 18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Jiang P, Peta A, Brevik A, Arada RB, Ayad M, Afyouni AS, Limfueco L, Nguyen N, Palma A, Patel RM, Landman J, Clayman RV. Ex Vivo Renal Stone Dusting: Impact of Laser Modality, Ureteral Access Sheath, and Suction on Total Stone Clearance. J Endourol. 2022 Apr;36(4):499-507. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0544.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sierra A, Corrales M, Kolvatzis M, Panthier F, Pinero A, Traxer O. Thermal Injury and Laser Efficiency with Holmium YAG and Thulium Fiber Laser-An In Vitro Study. J Endourol. 2022 Dec;36(12):1599-1606. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0216.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Petzold R, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Miernik A. Temperature Assessment of a Novel Pulsed Thulium Solid-State Laser Compared with a Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet Laser. J Endourol. 2021 Jun;35(6):853-859. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0803. Epub 2020 Dec 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Castellani D, Fong KY, Lim EJ, Chew BH, Tailly T, Emiliani E, Teoh JY, Chai CA, Heng CT, Ong Lay Keat W, Tanidir Y, Ragoori D, Galosi AB, Singh A, Bin Hamri S, Traxer O, Somani BK, Gauhar V. Comparison Between Holmium:YAG Laser with MOSES Technology vs Thulium Fiber Laser Lithotripsy in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Kidney Stones in Adults: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis From the FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry. J Urol. 2023 Aug;210(2):323-330. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003504. Epub 2023 May 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Haas CR, Knoedler MA, Li S, Gralnek DR, Best SL, Penniston KL, Nakada SY. Pulse-modulated Holmium:YAG Laser vs the Thulium Fiber Laser for Renal and Ureteral Stones: A Single-center Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2023 Feb;209(2):374-383. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003050. Epub 2023 Jan 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mahajan AD, Mahajan SA. Thulium fiber laser versus holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet laser for stone lithotripsy during mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A prospective randomized trial. Indian J Urol. 2022 Jan-Mar;38(1):42-47. doi: 10.4103/iju.iju_331_21. Epub 2022 Jan 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Patil A, Reddy N, Shah D, Singh A, Ganpule A, Sabnis R, Desai M. High-Power Holmium with MOSES Technology or Thulium Fiber Laser in MiniPerc with Suction: A New Curiosity. J Endourol. 2022 Oct;36(10):1348-1354. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0915. Epub 2022 Aug 17.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Cella D, Choi SW, Condon DM, Schalet B, Hays RD, Rothrock NE, Yount S, Cook KF, Gershon RC, Amtmann D, DeWalt DA, Pilkonis PA, Stone AA, Weinfurt K, Reeve BB. PROMIS(R) Adult Health Profiles: Efficient Short-Form Measures of Seven Health Domains. Value Health. 2019 May;22(5):537-544. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.004.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Higgins AM, Ganesan V, Ghani KR, Agarwal DK, Borofsky MS, Dauw CA. The 2023 Stone-Free CT Mandate: Addressing the Two Sides of the Debate. J Endourol. 2022 Dec;36(12):1522-1525. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0610. Epub 2022 Nov 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2072488-2
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Economics of SOLTIVE Compared to Ho:YAG Laser in Urolithiasis
NCT04997668
UNKNOWN
NA
Ureteroscopy With High-powered Holmium:Yag Laser Lithotripsy With and Moses On or Moses Off
NCT06346483
RECRUITING
NA
Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) Versus Holmium MOSES Laser for Ureteroscopic Management of Kidney Stones
NCT05598645
RECRUITING
NA
Effectiveness of Holmium and Thulium Lasers With Ureteroscopy for Urinary Lithiasis
NCT04871984
UNKNOWN
Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) vs Thulio Pulsed Thulium:YAG (p-Tm:YAG)
NCT06721975
RECRUITING
NA
Laser Lithotripsy During URS - Holmium vs Thulium
NCT04668586
COMPLETED
NA
Holmium Vs Trilogy Kidney Stones GUY's 1-2
NCT04559321
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
PMCF Investigation of MODULITH® SLX-F2 With StorM-Track in Patients With Kidney Stones
NCT07272720
RECRUITING
NA
Comparing Super Pulse Fiber Thulium Laser and Holmium Laser for Ureteral Stone Fragmentation During Ureteroscopy
NCT06667557
RECRUITING
Thulium Fiber Laser vs. Holmium:YAG Laser for the Ureteroscopic Treatment of Patients With Urinary Stone Disease
NCT06306222
RECRUITING
NA
TFL vs MOSES Holmium Laser in the En-bloc Resection of Bladder Tumors
NCT06373419
RECRUITING
NA
Thulium vs. Hol:YAG Laser
NCT05808257
COMPLETED
NA
A Comparison of Ureteroscopic Treatment of Nephrolithiasis With and Without Moses Technology
NCT04505956
COMPLETED
NA
Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficiency of Holmium Laser Settings on Urinary Stones
NCT03526458
COMPLETED
NA
Standard vs Mini-PCNL for the Treatment of Stone Disease
NCT04069013
COMPLETED
NA
Efficacy of Semi-rigid Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones: a Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT06489366
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Long Pulse Versus Short Pulse Laser Dusting for Renal Stones
NCT03608098
WITHDRAWN
NA
New Laser and Suction Sheath for Kidney Stone Treatment
NCT06667466
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Ureteroscopic Laser Modality on Total Lasing Time and Total Energy in Patients With Large, Dense Renal Calculi
NCT05869890
TERMINATED
NA
Comparison of Total Tubeless Mini-PCNL Versus Tubeless Mini-PCNL
NCT06288022
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
ShockPulse-SE vs. Trilogy Trial: Comparing the Performance of Two Intracorporeal Lithotripters for Removal of Large Renal Calculi
NCT03959683
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of High and Low Pulse Energy Dusting Protocols Using Holmium: YAG-laser in Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stones Treatment
NCT06338137
COMPLETED
NA
Ho:YAG Laser Versus Thulium Laser for the Management of 2-4cm Kidney Stones During SMP
NCT05190536
UNKNOWN
NA
Thulium Fiber Laser Prospective Trial
NCT05814133
RECRUITING
NA
High Versus Low Power Settings During Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy
NCT05697250
RECRUITING
NA