|Authors||Krambeck AE, Miller NL, Humphreys MR, Nakada SY, Denstedt JD, Razvi H, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, Matlaga BR, Paterson RF, Chew BH, Munch LC, Handa SE, Lingeman JE|
|Journal||BJU Int. Volume: 107 Issue: 5 Pages: 824-828|
|Publish Date||2011 Mar|
• To compare the Cyberwand (Gyrus/ACMI, Southborough, MA, USA), a dual-probe ultrasonic lithotrite, with a single-probe ultrasonic lithotrite. • The Cyberwand incorporates coaxial high- and low-frequency ultrasonic probes that work synergistically.• An institutional review board-approved, multicentre, randomized controlled trial to compare the Cyberwand to the Olympus LUS-II (Olympus America, Inc., Melville, NY, USA) single-probe lithotrite was performed. • Patients undergoing a percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with a target stone > 2 cm in diameter were eligible for the study. • The primary outcome was the time to removal of the targeted stone.• A total of 57 PCNLs were performed after randomization: 25 Cyberwand and 32 LUS-II. • There was no difference (P > 0.05) observed between the two devices for target stone surface area (Cyberwand 526.6 cm³ vs LUS-II 540.1 cm³), time to clearance of target stone (Cyberwand 15.8 min vs LUS-II 14.2 min) and target stone clearance rate (Cyberwand 61.9 mm²/min vs LUS-II 75.8 mm²/min). • Of the patients with stone analysis, hard stones (calcium oxalate monohydrate, brushite and cystine) were noted in 14 (56.0%) of the 25 Cyberwand and 18 (62.1%) of the 29 LUS-II patients. • Fifteen of the 25 (60.0%) Cyberwand and 20 of the 32 (62.5%) LUS-II patients were stone-free after the initial PCNL. • Those patients not rendered stone-free went on to receive a secondary PCNL. • Device malfunction occurred in eight of 25(32.0%) Cyberwand and five of 32 (15.6%) LUS II patients. • Complications were similar in both treatment groups.• No appreciable difference between the dual-probe Cyberwand and the standard ultrasonic Olympus LUS-II lithotrites can be identified.