Narrow Versus Wide Focal Zones for Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal Calculi

October 4, 2017 updated by: Unity Health Toronto

Multicentred, Randomized Control Trial Comparing Narrow Versus Wide Focal Zones for Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal Calculi

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a safe, non-invasive treatment for renal calculi. During SWL energy is focused on in order to break kidney stones and this energy can be varied in size from a narrow (or small) focal zone to a wide (or large) focal zone. This is a multi-centered, randomized study comparing the single treatment success rates of narrow and wide focal zones during SWL.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a safe and non-invasive treatment for kidney stones. The SWL machine that is currently in use has a unique feature: the focal zone or the energy that the SWL energy is focused on in order to break kidney stones can be varied in size from a narrow (or small) focal zone to a wide (or large) focal zone. Previous lithotripters have only offered one focal size that corresponded to a narrow range. The objective of this study is to compare the single-treatment success rates of narrow and wide focal zones for the shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones between 5 and 15 mm in greatest diameter, while maintaining a constant overall lithotripsy energy level. A wide focal zone may offer some trade-offs when compared with the traditional narrow focal zone: since the area being treated is larger, it is more likely that the stone will receive adequate energy as it moves with patient breathing during treatment, and less energy per cubic inch will be delivered to the kidney around the stone (which might lead to a lower degree of renal injury); on the other hand less energy per cubic inch will also be delivered to the stone, so that stone fragmentation might be inferior to that with a narrow focal zone. Thus, with this study we want to determine whether there is a significant difference in both stone fragmentation and in renal injury (as measured by the incidence of post-treatment renal hematoma or bruises, and by measuring urinary markers indicating the degree of renal cellular damage). Aside from the random choice of focal zone size, there will be no change to the standard of care for lithotripsy treatment. We predict that the narrow focal shock zone will result in superior stone fragmentation, with higher single-treatment stone free and success rates. However, we may identify a slight increased incidence in the rate of subcapsular renal hematoma and renal damage, as detected by urinary markers.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
275

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Canada
    • British Columbia
      • Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 1M9
        • Vancouver General Hospital, Jim Pattison Pavilion G floor station 5 GI/GU Lithotripsy suite
    • Ontario
      • London, Ontario, Canada
        • St. Joseph's Hospital, University of Western Ontario
      • Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 1W8
        • St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Lithotripsy suite, 5th floor Cardinal Carter North Wing

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Stone must be radiopaque on a KUB (kidney, ureter and bladder) radiograph, and located within the renal collecting system.
  • Patients must have had a CT scan within the past 30 days.
  • Stones must be solitary, between 5 and 15 mm in maximal diameter.
  • Patient must consent to the trial and be willing to return to their respective lithotripsy unit at 2 weeks and 3 months for follow-up.
  • Patients must be treated on the Storz Modulith SLX-F2 machine

Exclusion Criteria:

  • More than one renal calculus on the treated side.
  • Radiolucent stones (uric acid, indinavir) or cystine stones.
  • Stone size < 5 mm and > 15 mm.
  • Previous surgical intervention on upper tracts within past five years.
  • Congenital anatomic anomalies of the kidney, ureters or bladder (such as calyceal diverticulum, horseshoe kidney, etc.)
  • Patient currently taking an α-blocker (alfuzosin, terazosin, doxazosin, tamsulosin, prazosin), calcium channel blocker (verapamil, diltiazem, nifedipine, nicardipine, bepridil, mibefradil), or corticosteroids.
  • Pregnancy.
  • Age < 18 years.
  • Active urinary tract infection.
  • Patient exceed weight limit for SWL table (>500 lbs)
  • Previous SWL treatment for this stone.
  • Uncorrected coagulopathy

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: A (Narrow focus, LP)
A (Narrow focus): stone is in lower pole of kidney and SWL using narrow focus on lithotripter
Procedure: SWL: Shock Wave Lithotripsy Intervention
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the most common treatment modality for kidney stones. It is a safe and non-invasive treatment performed on patients under intravenous sedation (light anesthesia) on an out-patient basis, whereby shock waves are generated by a source external to the patient's body and are then propagated into the body and focused on a kidney stone. The unique quality of SWL is in its exploitation of shock wave focusing. The Storz lithotripter is an electromagnetic lithotripter with a unique design that allows for a dual focus system with the option of either a narrow (6x28 mm) or wide (9x50 mm) focal zone, depending on the clinical situation. This is the first lithotripter on the market to allow for two different focal zones for shock wave targeting.
Active Comparator: B (Wide focus, LP)
B: stone is in lower pole of kidney and SWL using wide focus on lithotripter
Procedure: SWL: Shock Wave Lithotripsy Intervention
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the most common treatment modality for kidney stones. It is a safe and non-invasive treatment performed on patients under intravenous sedation (light anesthesia) on an out-patient basis, whereby shock waves are generated by a source external to the patient's body and are then propagated into the body and focused on a kidney stone. The unique quality of SWL is in its exploitation of shock wave focusing. The Storz lithotripter is an electromagnetic lithotripter with a unique design that allows for a dual focus system with the option of either a narrow (6x28 mm) or wide (9x50 mm) focal zone, depending on the clinical situation. This is the first lithotripter on the market to allow for two different focal zones for shock wave targeting.
Active Comparator: C (Narrow focus, no LP)
C: stone is in no-lower pole of kidney and SWL using narrow focus on lithotripter
Procedure: SWL: Shock Wave Lithotripsy Intervention
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the most common treatment modality for kidney stones. It is a safe and non-invasive treatment performed on patients under intravenous sedation (light anesthesia) on an out-patient basis, whereby shock waves are generated by a source external to the patient's body and are then propagated into the body and focused on a kidney stone. The unique quality of SWL is in its exploitation of shock wave focusing. The Storz lithotripter is an electromagnetic lithotripter with a unique design that allows for a dual focus system with the option of either a narrow (6x28 mm) or wide (9x50 mm) focal zone, depending on the clinical situation. This is the first lithotripter on the market to allow for two different focal zones for shock wave targeting.
Active Comparator: D (Wide focus, no LP)
D: stone is in no-lower pole of kidney and SWL using wide focus on lithotripter
Procedure: SWL: Shock Wave Lithotripsy Intervention
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the most common treatment modality for kidney stones. It is a safe and non-invasive treatment performed on patients under intravenous sedation (light anesthesia) on an out-patient basis, whereby shock waves are generated by a source external to the patient's body and are then propagated into the body and focused on a kidney stone. The unique quality of SWL is in its exploitation of shock wave focusing. The Storz lithotripter is an electromagnetic lithotripter with a unique design that allows for a dual focus system with the option of either a narrow (6x28 mm) or wide (9x50 mm) focal zone, depending on the clinical situation. This is the first lithotripter on the market to allow for two different focal zones for shock wave targeting.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
SWL efficiency quotient comparison between narrow focus vs wide focus
Time Frame: 2 and 12 weeks
Comparison of single-treatment lithotripsy success rates at 2 and 12 weeks post-lithotripsy. Successful treatment will be defined as either stone-free status or presence of clinically insignificant asymptomatic residual fragments ≤ 4 mm. SWL efficiency quotient for the treatment groups, as calculated by the standardized formula: % stone-free divided by (100 + % re-treated + % auxiliary procedures).
2 and 12 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Incidence of perirenal hematomas
Time Frame: post treatment
Comparing the narrow and wide foci for the presence of perirenal hematomas post treatment on ultrasound.
post treatment
Biomarkers for renal injury
Time Frame: day 0; day 1; 1 week
Comparisons of urinary markers for identifying renal injury
day 0; day 1; 1 week
Time to stone passage
Time Frame: 12 weeks
Time it took to pass the stone for both arms will be compared for the 3 month follow up time.
12 weeks
Pain will be compared between narrow vs wide focus arms
Time Frame: day 0 (post treatment)
Visual analog pain scores will be compared between arms.
day 0 (post treatment)
Complication rates
Time Frame: 12 weeks
Complication rates will be compared between narrow and wide focus treatment arms.
12 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Unity Health Toronto

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
University of British Columbia
University of Toronto
University of Western Ontario, Canada

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: John Honey, MD, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto
  • Principal Investigator: Ken Pace, MD, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto
  • Principal Investigator: Ben Chew, MD, University of British Columbia - Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
  • Principal Investigator: Ryan Paterson, MD, University of British Columbia - Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
  • Principal Investigator: Hassan Razvi, MD, Western University, Canada

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
January 1, 2011

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
November 1, 2016

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
April 1, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
October 20, 2010

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 20, 2010

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
October 22, 2010

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
October 6, 2017

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 4, 2017

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
October 1, 2017

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 10-225

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings