|Authors||York N, Borofsky M, Chew BH, Dauw CA, Paterson RF, Denstedt JD, Razvi H, Nadler RB, Humphreys MR, Preminger GM, Nakada SY, Krambeck AE, Miller NL, Terry C, Rawlings L, Lingeman JE|
|Publish Date||2017 Aug 31|
To compare the efficiency (stone fragmentation and removal time) and complications of three models of intracorporeal lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Prospective, randomized controlled trial at nine centers in the North America from 2009 to 2016. Patients were randomized to one of three lithotripter devices: the Cyberwand, a dual probe ultrasonic device; the Swiss Lithoclast Select, a combination pneumatic and ultrasonic device; and the StoneBreaker, a portable pneumatic device powered by CO2 cartridges. The Since the StoneBreaker lacks an ultrasonic component, it was used with the LUS-II ultrasonic lithotripter to allow fair comparison with combination devices.270 patients were enrolled, 69 were excluded after randomization. 201 patients completed the study: 71 in the Cyberwand group, 66 in the Lithoclast Select, and 64 in the StoneBreaker group. The baseline patient characteristics of the three groups were similar. Mean stone surface area was smaller in the StoneBreaker group at 407.8mm2 vs 577.5mm2 (Lithoclast Select) and 627.9mm2 (Cyberwand). The stone clearance rate was slowest in the StoneBreaker group at 24.0 mm2/min vs 28.9 mm2/min and 32.3 mm2/min in the Lithoclast Select and Cyberwand groups respectively. After statistically adjusting for the smaller mean stone size in the StoneBreaker group, there was no difference in the stone clearance rate among the three groups (p=0.249). Secondary outcomes, including complications and stone free rates, were similar between the groups.The Cyberwand, Lithoclast Select, and the StoneBreaker lithotripters have similar adjusted stone clearance rates in PCNL for stones > 2cm. The safety and efficacy of these devices are comparable.