View clinical trials related to Stone Ureter.
Filter by:There are many treatment modalities available for managing renal and upper ureteric stones. They range from completely non-invasive outpatient procedures to invasive procedures requiring hospital admission and increased risks of complications. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a truly non-invasive procedure as opposed to other surgical treatments used, such as retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (1). The choice between shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and other treatment modalities depends on several factors, including stone site, stone burden, stone CT density, etc. Another compounding factor in choosing the treatment modality is patient preference and expectation (1). Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy is one of the treatment options for patients with renal and ureteral calculi. Even though the procedure is less invasive compared to others. Pain caused by the procedure is a major concern. Several studies recommended the use of either local or systemic analgesia with varying results (2). As a truly non-invasive treatment option, ESWL has been widely used for treating renal, as well as ureteric, stones with satisfactory efficacy and minimal morbidity. However, the pain caused by ESWL is a major limitation of its efficacy, in addition to the associated patient dissatisfaction and negative experience that may result in the patient refraining from further sessions. The relationship between pain and ESWL efficacy can be explained by multiple facts: firstly, the pain leads to inability to increase the energy delivered by the shockwaves to optimum levels; secondly, the pain usually leads to significant movement of the patient, as well as excessive respiratory movements, both of which move the stone away from the focus of shockwaves; lastly, the pain may be severe that the session is discontinued before delivery of effective number of shockwaves
The purpose of this registry is to collect data on patients who have undergone minimally invasive treatments for urinary system stone disease, including percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), semi-rigid ureterorenoscopy (URS), and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS).
This is a multicenter prospective trial with randomized and observational cohorts assessing patient-reported outcomes and unplanned healthcare utilization following ureteroscopic treatment of renal and ureteral stones, with placement versus omission of a ureteral stent. Eligible participants in the randomization trial will be randomized to ureteroscopy with stent placement or stent omission. Eligible participants that consent to the observational only cohort will complete surveys and the treating physicians will decide the treatment options for the participants. The study team hypothesizes that: - Pain interference change from pre-surgery to Day 7-10 will differ between the two treatment arms. This hypothesis will be evaluated separately in the randomized and observational cohorts. - Unplanned healthcare utilization in the treatment arms will have different unplanned healthcare utilization ranks leading to a win proportion significantly higher or lower than 0.5 in the stent omission arm compared to the stent placement arm. This hypothesis will be evaluated separately in the randomized and observational cohorts.
The aim of this study is to prospectively analyze patient satisfaction, pain, delivered energy and clinical effectiveness of using VR as a complimentary treatment modality during SWL.
The present study is randomized in nature, comparing the stone free rate and complications rate between semi-rigid ureteroscopy (SR-URS) and Flexible Ureteroscopy (F-URS) for the treatment of Proximal Ureteric stone (PUS), whereby the preoperative assessments, procedure and reporting of outcomes will all be standardized.
To investigate the effectiveness of percutaneous nephrostomy catheter placement versus retrograde double J catheter placement in patients with symptoms of obstructive kidney disease (with either infection and/or pain and/or kidney function deterioration) caused by urolithiasis.
Background: The exit strategy after ureteroscopy for stone treatment remains a topic for discussion. Current EAU guidelines on urolithiasis state that postoperative stenting is indicated in patients at increased risk of postoperative complications. Stenting is not considered necessary in all other cases, and after uncomplicated procedures. Objective: To analyse the postoperative ureteral stenting strategy in clinical practice looking at the indication, type of stents used and the duration of stenting after ureteroscopy for stone treatment. Furthermore, the investigators will examine in what setting the stents are being removed postoperatively. Study design: This study is a prospective, observational, international, multicentre registry study executed by uCARE. Study population: All patients >18 years with a ureter or renal stone who are planned for ureteroscopic treatment by semi-rigid and/or flexible ureteroscopy are eligible for this study.
The primary objective of this study is to compare the time to acceptable stone fragmentation during clinical use of the holmium laser when using energy settings 0.2J vs 0.8J. The hypothesis is that holmium laser energy settings 0.8J will require less time than lower energy settings 0.2J for fragmenting urinary stones. The clinical practice is to treat urinary stones until the stone is reduced to fragments ≤ 2 mm in size. This is determined by using the laser fiber which is 273 microns to visually estimate the size of the resultant fragments as described by Patel et al, J Endo 2014. Investigators will standardize the effect of stone size by creating a ratio of stone size to treatment time. In this study, the frequency is set at 15Hz. Thus, the study contains two arms: 0.2J&15Hz, and 0.8J&15Hz. Patients will be randomized into the two groups by the ratio of 1:1.