Skip to content

Comparing Efficiency and Stone-Free Rates Mini PCNL vs Flex URS

Comparing Efficiency and Stone-Free Rates After Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Flexible Ureteroscopy With Suction Access Sheaths

Status
Withdrawn
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07072598
Enrollment
0
Registered
2025-07-18
Start date
2026-04-01
Completion date
2027-12-01
Last updated
2026-08-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Kidney Stones, Nephrolithiasis, Urolithiasis

Keywords

kidney stone, Ureteroscopy, Mini-PCNL, ClearPETRA, kidney stone interventional treatment, kidney stone 1cm-3cm

Brief summary

The objective of the study is to compare the stone free rates with ureteroscopy utilizing the ClearPETRA suction ureteral access sheath, and mini-PCNL; both procedures and ClearPETRA sheaths are standard of care and are used regularly for stone treatment. Our primary objective is to assess the complete stone free rate with both procedures.

Detailed description

With the advent of mini-PCNLs, some endourologists have been utilizing the technique to treat renal calculi up to 3cm in size with better stone free rates and similar comorbidity compared to ureteroscopy. These procedures require percutaneous renal access, and it is associated with greater length of stay and fluoroscopy time. The ClearPETRA ureteral access sheath has shown great promise with improving stone free rates, decreasing intra-renal pressure and delivering some of the benefits of mini-PCNL without the added risk associated with obtaining percutaneous renal access. The ClearPETRA flexible suction ureteral access sheath anecdotally improves efficiency and allows endourologists to better clear stone debris when compared to traditional ureteral access sheaths. We have yet to see a comparison between suction ureteral access sheaths and mini-PCNL with the suction renal access sheath. Study Hypothesis: Compared to traditional access sheaths, using ClearPETRA access sheaths will result in an improvement in stone free rates with both modalities, with lower complications. Using ClearPETRA access sheaths in both modalities compared to traditional access sheaths should result in less of a difference in stone free rates between the ureteroscopy group and the mini-PCNL group.

Interventions

DEVICEClearPETRA suction access sheath

Ureteroscopy utilizing the ClearPETRA suction access sheath.

Sponsors

Northwestern University
Lead SponsorOTHER
KARL STORZ Endoscopy-America, Inc.
CollaboratorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients 18 years or older * Have a CT scan showing renal stones 1-3cm in length * Patients who will be able to read, understand, and complete patient questionnaires

Exclusion criteria

* Pregnant individuals * Those with anomalous renal anatomy * Patients with a urinary diversion (ex: Ileal conduit, reservoir, bladder substitute, etc.) * Any condition rendering patient medically unfit to undergo either procedure (Bleeding diasthesis) * Patients who lack decisional capacity * Patients who are non-english speakers\* * Non-recruitment of non-english speakers is due to the study being a small pilot study that is used to assess the stone free rate for patients treated with a ureteroscopy or mini-PCNL using ClearPETRA suction access sheaths in a small portion of our patient population seeking treatment for stones. The team also does not possess the bandwidth or personnel to consent patients who are non-English speaking.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Stone free rate4 weeks post-procedureStone free rate (no residual stone) on post-procedure CT

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Surgery timeProcedure day (1 day)Surgery time (minutes)
Complication rateProcedure day (1 day)Complication rate (Clavien-Dindo) (%)
Unplanned hospital visits90 days postoperativelyUnplanned hospital visits (ED/clinic)
Need for additional procedure90 days postoperativelyNeed for additional procedure (within 90 days postoperatively)
Length of stayPerioperatively (starting at Baseline/Procedure Date)Length of stay hospital stay (if admitted post-procedure, or readmitted)
Inability to access ureterProcedure day (1 day)Intra-operative complications including inability to access the ureter ureteroscopically or need to upsize the renal access sheath with the percutaneous approach.
Need to upsize from 18Fr SheathProcedure day (1 day)Need to upsize from 18Fr (PCNL group)
Occurrence of post-procedure sepsisPerioperatively (starting at Baseline/Procedure Date)Post-op sepsis
Hospital / patient costs (in total for procedure and any necessary postoperative hospital admissions or procedures related to the initial procedure).Perioperatively (starting at Baseline/Procedure Date)Any necessary postoperative hospital admissions or procedures related to the initial procedure

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORAmy E Krambeck, MD

Northwestern University

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Aug 21, 2026