Laser vs Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy for Difficult CBD Stones
NCT ID: NCT07030829
Last Updated: 2025-06-22
Study Results
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.
RECRUITING
NA
60 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-03-01
2026-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
According to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), difficult CBD stones are characterized by large size (≥15 mm), impaction, multiple stones, difficult locations (e.g., intrahepatic or cystic ducts), or altered anatomy due to previous surgeries. These cases require advanced techniques such as single-operator cholangioscopy (SOC) using the SpyGlass DS system, which allows direct stone visualization and lithotripsy-assisted fragmentation.
Two primary lithotripsy methods are available:
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy (EHL): Uses shock waves from electrical energy to break stones.
Laser Lithotripsy (LL): Uses laser energy to fragment stones through a water-mediated medium.
While both techniques are effective, studies suggest LL has a higher first-attempt stone clearance rate (82-100%) compared to EHL (70.9-75%). However, EHL is more cost-effective and widely available, whereas LL offers greater precision but at a higher cost. Currently, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) directly compares their efficacy, procedural time, complication rates, or operator satisfaction.
This study aims to fill that gap by conducting a randomized trial comparing EHL and LL in the treatment of difficult CBD stones. The primary outcome is the success rate of complete stone clearance in the first session, while secondary outcomes include procedural duration, post-procedural complications, and operator satisfaction.
The findings will provide critical evidence for optimizing endoscopic stone management, improving patient outcomes, and guiding healthcare resource allocation.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Laser Lithotripsy for Difficult Large Bile Duct Stones
NCT02538731
Comparison of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Plus Large-balloon Dilatation and Conventional Treatment for Large CBD Stones
NCT02592811
Laser Versus Mechanical Lithotripsy of Bile Duct Stones
NCT01759979
Electrohydraulic Versus Laser Lithotripsy for Treatment of Difficult to Remove Biliary Stones
NCT01571271
Endoscopic Papillary Large Balloon Dilatation Versus Mechanical Lithotripsy for Large Stones
NCT02666820
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) defines difficult CBD stones as those meeting one or more of the following criteria: stone size ≥15 mm, impacted stones, multiple stones, stones in difficult-to-access locations (e.g., intrahepatic or cystic ducts), barrel-shaped stones, or stones in patients with altered anatomy due to prior surgical interventions (e.g., Roux-en-Y reconstruction). These cases often require specialized techniques to achieve successful stone clearance while minimizing complications.
Intervention and Rationale:
Single-operator cholangioscopy using the SpyGlass system has become a widely adopted approach for managing difficult CBD stones. This technique enables direct visualization of the stone and facilitates lithotripsy, which fragments stones into smaller pieces for easier removal. The two primary lithotripsy techniques available are:
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy (EHL): Uses shock waves generated by electrical energy transmitted through a probe to fragment stones.
Laser Lithotripsy (LL): Uses laser energy delivered through a water-mediated medium to break stones into smaller pieces.
Both techniques have demonstrated high success rates in stone fragmentation and removal, but debate persists regarding their relative efficacy. Some studies suggest that LL achieves higher first-attempt stone clearance rates (82-100%) compared to EHL (70.9-75%). However, EHL is generally more cost-effective and widely available, whereas LL offers greater precision at a higher procedural cost.
Objective:
This study aims to compare the effectiveness of EHL and LL in the management of difficult CBD stones through a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The primary outcome is the success rate of complete stone clearance in the first session. Secondary outcomes include procedural time, complication rates, and operator satisfaction.
Study Design:
Study Type: Randomized Controlled Trial
Study Population: Patients diagnosed with difficult CBD stones requiring lithotripsy
Intervention Groups:
Group 1: EHL via SpyGlass DS
Group 2: LL via SpyGlass DS
Primary Endpoint: First-session complete stone clearance rate
Secondary Endpoints:
Procedural duration
Post-procedural complications
Operator satisfaction
Significance:
The findings from this study will provide valuable evidence for endoscopists regarding the optimal lithotripsy method for difficult CBD stones, ultimately improving patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. By identifying the most effective and efficient technique, this study aims to optimize treatment strategies and enhance clinical decision-making in endoscopic stone management.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Laser Lithotripsy
Laser Lithotripsy
Laser Lithotripsy
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Laser Lithotripsy
Laser Lithotripsy
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy
Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Difficult CBD stone
* Large CBD stone (stone \> 1.5 cm) or Stone impaction or CBD stones that were not completely removed using conventional techniques.
Exclusion Criteria
* Unstable vital signs
* Severe comorbidities
* Uncorrected coagulopathy
* Surgically altered anatomy
* Unable to complete informed consent
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Siriraj Hospital
OTHER
Mahidol University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Varayu Prachayakul
Associate Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Varayu Prachayakul, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Mahidol University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
SI 066/2025
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.