Questa pagina è stata tradotta automaticamente e l'accuratezza della traduzione non è garantita. Si prega di fare riferimento al Versione inglese per un testo di partenza.

Fragmentation Vs Dusting With FANS for Renal Stones Less Than 2cm: A Randomized Controlled Study

26 giugno 2026 aggiornato da: Akash Chitrakar, Bir Hospital

Fragmentation Vs Dusting Using TFL With FANS for Renal Stones Less Than 2cm

The use of FANS has changed the operative landscape of RIRS by allowing continuous active suction-assisted clearance of ablated stone material in real time. Use of fragmentation technique in FANS requires high-energy to reduce stone burden into small fragments, followed by active suction of residual fine material. Dusting with FANS, on the other hand, converts the entire stone volume into sub-millimetre particulate that is continuously suctioned away during lasing potentially offering a more streamlined workflow with potentially less energy usage, reduced mechanical stress on the ureteroscope working channel, and fewer scope withdrawals. The combination of TFL dusting with FANS-assisted real-time evacuation may produce stone-free outcomes equivalent or superior to fragmentation, while offering these additional operative efficiencies.

Whether dusting using TFL with FANS is non-inferior or indeed superior to fragmentation using TFL with FANS in terms of stone-free rate at one month has not been evaluated in prospective randomised trial yet. This study aims to answer that specific question in patients with renal stone less than 2 cm.

Panoramica dello studio

Descrizione dettagliata

Urolithiasis is among the most prevalent urological disorders worldwide, with a lifetime recurrence risk ranging from 30 to 50% in affected individuals. Global Burden of Disease study in 2021 estimated 106 million new incident cases of urolithiasis globally, representing a 47% increase from 1990, driven by population growth, changing dietary patterns, rising rates of metabolic syndrome, and climate-related factors. Regions with tropical and subtropical climates including South Asia bear a disproportionately higher burden, with prevalence estimates of 5-10% compared to 1-5% in temperate regions. Nephrolithiasis is not merely a surgical inconvenience; it imposes significant morbidity through recurrent renal colic, obstructive uropathy, urinary tract infection, and progressive renal dysfunction, with substantial associated healthcare costs.

Retrograde Intra-Renal Surgery (RIRS) has become the preferred minimally invasive modality for the definitive management of most renal calculi endorsed by both the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA) for stones amenable to endoscopic treatment. It offers the advantage of direct pyelocaliceal access without the morbidity of percutaneous access, with established stone-free rates (SFR) exceeding 90% for stones less than 2 cm in contemporary series.

The operative strategy employed during RIRS specifically, the choice between stone fragmentation and stone dusting remains a subject of active clinical debate, with meaningful implications for operative efficiency, stone-free outcomes, and scope longevity. Fragmentation involves delivering high pulse energy (typically 0.8-1.5 J) at low frequency (5-10 Hz) to reduce calculi into retrievable fragments of less than 4 mm. Dusting employs low pulse energy (0.2-0.5 J) at higher frequency (15-25 Hz) to ablate the stone into sub-millimetre powder particles. In the holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG) laser studies, fragmentation consistently demonstrated superior SFRs. El-Nahas et al. reported a significantly higher SFR with fragmentation compared to dusting (78.6% vs. 58.6%, p=0.035) at 2 months on non-contrast CT, albeit at the cost of a longer operative time (91 vs. 76 minutes, p=0.009). A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis corroborated these findings, demonstrating that dusting was associated with a lower pooled stone-free rate (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.41-0.89, p=0.01) and a significantly higher re-treatment rate (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.31-3.13, p=0.001), though with a shorter operative time and comparable complication profile. These data, however, were generated predominantly with Ho:YAG laser technology and without active suction-assisted clearance, a critical limitation in extrapolating these findings to contemporary practice.

The Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL), introduced into clinical practice in 2018, represents a fundamental technological shift from the Ho:YAG platform. Operating at a wavelength of 1,940 nm, TFL demonstrates a four- to fivefold higher water absorption coefficient, a lower stone ablation threshold, and a more uniform rectangular pulse profile compared to the asymmetrical spike-decay waveform of Ho:YAG. These physical characteristics translate to superior ablation efficiency. TFL achieves fragmentation speeds up to twice and dusting speeds up to ten times faster than Ho:YAG at comparable settings, with significantly less stone retropulsion. Crucially, unlike Ho:YAG where increasing pulse energy generates larger residual fragments, TFL dusting at higher pulse energies does not increase fragment size producing dust particles consistently below 0.254 mm regardless of energy setting, making it inherently better suited to achieving fine, clearable particulate. A systematic review and meta-analysis of TFL-based RIRS reported a pooled SFR of 89.37% (95% CI: 83.93-93.12%), with TFL use independently associated with higher odds of achieving zero-fragment status in multivariable analysis.

The introduction of FANS has fundamentally altered the operative landscape of RIRS by enabling continuous active suction-assisted clearance of ablated stone material in real time. In conventional RIRS without active suction, the inferior stone-free rates historically associated with dusting were largely attributable to inadequate clearance of residual particulate from the pelvicalyceal system. With use of FANS, this limitation is addressed with fragments produced by fragmentation and dust produced by dusting both evacuated under the same negative-pressure suction system. Fragmentation with FANS requires high-energy to reduce stone burden into small fragments, followed by active suction of residual fine material. Dusting with FANS, on the other hand, converts the entire stone volume into sub-millimetre particulate that is continuously suctioned away during lasing potentially offering a more streamlined workflow with potentially less energy usage, reduced mechanical stress on the ureteroscope working channel, and fewer scope withdrawals. Given TFL's inherent superiority in generating fine, consistently small dust particles irrespective of pulse energy; the combination of TFL dusting with FANS-assisted real-time evacuation may produce stone-free outcomes equivalent or superior to fragmentation, while offering these additional operative efficiencies.

Whether dusting using TFL with FANS is non-inferior or indeed superior to fragmentation using TFL with FANS in terms of stone-free rate at one month has not been evaluated in any prospective randomised trial. This study is designed to answer that specific question in patients with renal stone less than 2cm, using a rigorously standardised equipment framework, blinded NCCT KUB-based outcome assessment, and a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%.

Tipo di studio

Interventistico

Iscrizione (Stimato)

86

Fase

  • Non applicabile

Contatti e Sedi

Questa sezione fornisce i recapiti di coloro che conducono lo studio e informazioni su dove viene condotto lo studio.

Contatto studio

Criteri di partecipazione

I ricercatori cercano persone che corrispondano a una certa descrizione, chiamata criteri di ammissibilità. Alcuni esempi di questi criteri sono le condizioni generali di salute di una persona o trattamenti precedenti.

Criteri di ammissibilità

Età idonea allo studio

  • Adulto
  • Adulto più anziano

Accetta volontari sani

No

Descrizione

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Renal stone(s) confirmed on non-contrast CT KUB
  • Total stone less than 2cm
  • Stone amenable to flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS)
  • FANS advanced beyond Pelvi-Ureteric Junction (PUJ)
  • Able and willing to provide written informed consent
  • Able to comply with follow-up schedule

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Active urinary tract infection (positive urine culture) at time of planned surgery
  • Anatomical anomalies precluding safe FURS (e.g., infundibular stenosis, severe calyceal diverticulum inaccessible to flexible scope)
  • Pregnancy or breastfeeding
  • Prior ipsilateral renal surgery within 3 months of enrollment
  • Concurrent ureteral stone(s) requiring simultaneous treatment
  • Renal anomalies: horseshoe kidney, ectopic kidney
  • Sheathless procedure
  • Unable to comply with follow-up or provide consent
  • Participation in another interventional trial within 30 days

Piano di studio

Questa sezione fornisce i dettagli del piano di studio, compreso il modo in cui lo studio è progettato e ciò che lo studio sta misurando.

Come è strutturato lo studio?

Dettagli di progettazione

  • Scopo principale: Trattamento
  • Assegnazione: Randomizzato
  • Modello interventistico: Assegnazione parallela
  • Mascheramento: Separare

Armi e interventi

Gruppo di partecipanti / Arm
Intervento / Trattamento
Comparatore attivo: Fragmentation
0.8-1J, 5-10Hz
Fragmentation involves delivering high pulse energy (typically 0.6-0.8 J) at low frequency (5-10 Hz) to reduce calculi into retrievable fragments of less than 4 mm.
Comparatore attivo: Dusting
0.6-0.8J, 12-15Hz
Dusting employs low pulse energy (0.6-0.8 J) at higher frequency (12-15 Hz) to ablate the stone into sub-millimetre powder particles.

Cosa sta misurando lo studio?

Misure di risultato primarie

Misura del risultato
Misura Descrizione
Lasso di tempo
Stone free rate
Lasso di tempo: At 1 month after surgery
To determine whether dusting is non-inferior to fragmentation using Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) with Flexible and Navigable Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) with respect to stone-free rate (SFR) at 1 month post-procedure in patients with renal stones less than 2cm.
At 1 month after surgery

Misure di risultato secondarie

Misura del risultato
Misura Descrizione
Lasso di tempo
Operative time
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operative
To compare total operative time between fragmentation and dusting arms
Intra-operative
Lasing time
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operative
To compare laser activation time between fragmentation and dusting
Intra-operative
Energy consumption
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operative
To compare Energy consumption between two arms
Intra-operative
Ablation speed
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operative
To compare ablation speed between two arms
Intra-operative
Active suction time
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operative
To compare active suction time between fragmentation and dusting
Intra-operative
Number of scope withdrawals
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operative
To compare number of scope withdrawals during active suction between arms
Intra-operative
Re-intervention rates
Lasso di tempo: 3 months
To compare need of auxillary procedures to clear residual fragments between two groups
3 months
Intra-operative Complications
Lasso di tempo: Intra-operatively
To compare incidence of bleeding, PCS injury and ureteral injury between 2 groups
Intra-operatively
Post-operative complications
Lasso di tempo: at end of surgery up to 3 months
To compare incidence of fever, UTI, hematuria, urosepsis and ureteric stricture between two groups
at end of surgery up to 3 months

Collaboratori e investigatori

Qui è dove troverai le persone e le organizzazioni coinvolte in questo studio.

Sponsor

Pubblicazioni e link utili

La persona responsabile dell'inserimento delle informazioni sullo studio fornisce volontariamente queste pubblicazioni. Questi possono riguardare qualsiasi cosa relativa allo studio.

Pubblicazioni generali

Studiare le date dei record

Queste date tengono traccia dell'avanzamento della registrazione dello studio e dell'invio dei risultati di sintesi a ClinicalTrials.gov. I record degli studi e i risultati riportati vengono esaminati dalla National Library of Medicine (NLM) per assicurarsi che soddisfino specifici standard di controllo della qualità prima di essere pubblicati sul sito Web pubblico.

Studia le date principali

Inizio studio (Stimato)

1 agosto 2026

Completamento primario (Stimato)

1 agosto 2027

Completamento dello studio (Stimato)

7 agosto 2027

Date di iscrizione allo studio

Primo inviato

1 giugno 2026

Primo inviato che soddisfa i criteri di controllo qualità

5 giugno 2026

Primo Inserito (Effettivo)

10 giugno 2026

Aggiornamenti dei record di studio

Ultimo aggiornamento pubblicato (Effettivo)

30 giugno 2026

Ultimo aggiornamento inviato che soddisfa i criteri QC

26 giugno 2026

Ultimo verificato

1 giugno 2026

Maggiori informazioni

Termini relativi a questo studio

Piano per i dati dei singoli partecipanti (IPD)

Hai intenzione di condividere i dati dei singoli partecipanti (IPD)?

INDECISO

Informazioni su farmaci e dispositivi, documenti di studio

Studia un prodotto farmaceutico regolamentato dalla FDA degli Stati Uniti

No

Studia un dispositivo regolamentato dalla FDA degli Stati Uniti

No

Queste informazioni sono state recuperate direttamente dal sito web clinicaltrials.gov senza alcuna modifica. In caso di richieste di modifica, rimozione o aggiornamento dei dettagli dello studio, contattare register@clinicaltrials.gov. Non appena verrà implementata una modifica su clinicaltrials.gov, questa verrà aggiornata automaticamente anche sul nostro sito web .

Sottoscrivi