Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=95 Randomized Single-blind Treatment

Impact Ureteral Sheath Design During Ureteroscopy

Renal Stone · Nephrolithiasis · Urolithiasis

Enrolled (actual)
95
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jan 2018
Primary outcome: Primary: Number of Participants With Successful Sheath Placement — 37; 39 Participants

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Cook Flexor (Device); Boston Scientific Navigator (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
The Cleveland Clinic
Primary completion
Jul 2016

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Number of Participants With Successful Sheath Placement
37; 39
SECONDARY
Number of Participants With Injury to the Ureter
36; 27
SECONDARY
Ease of Sheath Placement
2.9; 3.4

Summary

The purpose of this study is to assess whether one of two ureteral access sheaths is safer for patients undergoing ureteroscopy. Both sheaths are FDA approved devices and commercially available. The investigators will compare the ability of sheaths to access the kidney through the ureter and will compare damage done to the ureter after completion of the procedure. Access sheaths are standard of care for this procedure; this study seeks to optimize outcomes for patients. Patients undergoing ureteroscopy who do not have ureteral stents in place and who have not had an ipsilateral procedure within 90 days will be recruited and consented.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Patients planned for ureteroscopy
  • Current CT scan within 90-days before the operation
  • Able to give informed consent
  • Ages 18 years and older

Exclusion Criteria

  • Inability to give informed consent
  • Age less than 18 years
  • Pregnant
  • Stones in the ureter
  • Having previous ipsilateral ureteral or renal surgery within 90 days
  • Having stents placed in ipsilateral ureter within 90 days
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03349099). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search